The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect, but there are multiple possible targets and no clear consensus for any one.
RL0919 (
talk) 17:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Non-notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. D&D's werebears don't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources, so this article fails
WP:GNG. If this article gets deleted, redirecting it to
WereBear might be possible, (and in fact, this page originally was a redirect to
WereBear, until an IP changed it into an article about the D&D creature), but I'm not sure if that topic is notable, either.
Not a very active user (
talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable fictional creature. There are no reliable secondary sources currently being used in the article, and none available upon searching. The concept of werebears is not even unique to D&D so the current article title would not even be appropriate as a redirect to any of the remaining D&D lists. I would also not suggest using it as a redirect to
WereBear as it was originally created as, because that toyline does not appear to pass the
WP:GNG either.
Rorshacma (
talk) 06:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual.
WP:GAMEGUIDE --
Sirfurboy (
talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While the concept has recieved some mentions, there is nothing significant discussing it.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG, too trivial in the grand scope of D&D to worry about retention of information. Fan wikis can cover it.
TTN (
talk) 22:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. No prejudice against creating a redirect, but there are multiple possible targets and no clear consensus for any one.
RL0919 (
talk) 17:35, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Non-notable Dungeons & Dragons creature. D&D's werebears don't seem to be discussed in non-primary sources, so this article fails
WP:GNG. If this article gets deleted, redirecting it to
WereBear might be possible, (and in fact, this page originally was a redirect to
WereBear, until an IP changed it into an article about the D&D creature), but I'm not sure if that topic is notable, either.
Not a very active user (
talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non notable fictional creature. There are no reliable secondary sources currently being used in the article, and none available upon searching. The concept of werebears is not even unique to D&D so the current article title would not even be appropriate as a redirect to any of the remaining D&D lists. I would also not suggest using it as a redirect to
WereBear as it was originally created as, because that toyline does not appear to pass the
WP:GNG either.
Rorshacma (
talk) 06:03, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not the monster manual.
WP:GAMEGUIDE --
Sirfurboy (
talk) 10:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. While the concept has recieved some mentions, there is nothing significant discussing it.ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails
WP:GNG, too trivial in the grand scope of D&D to worry about retention of information. Fan wikis can cover it.
TTN (
talk) 22:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Lacks sufficient RS to pass the GNG.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.