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]

Werebear[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 05:40, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. 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]
Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). BD2412 T 04:15, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Lycanthrope (Dungeons & Dragons). Perfectly legitimate merge target and merging should always be preferred over outright deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - AFD is not a vote. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 22 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.