Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banshrae

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 redirect to List_of_Dungeons_&_Dragons_4th_edition_monsters#WTC_21720_-_Monster_Manual_(2008). There is no clear consensus as to what content should be merged, so I'll leave that to the contributors of the articles to decide, which can be done from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:47, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Banshrae

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

No evidence of notability, no secondary sources. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as significant creature in the 4th edition Monster Manual, or merge and redirect to List of Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 14:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would prefer a merge and redirect approach here, as the amount of information presented is small, and an article can be reconsituted if additional information becomes available. However, the suggested target list does not provide for a great deal of information to be retained. Perhaps it needs to be made into something more intermediate. bd2412 T 16:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect per convincing argument by bd2412 T. Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:33, 28 October 2011 (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.