Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wererat


 * 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 Rat. Tone 19:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Wererat

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable fantasy creature that fails WP:GNG. Mostly just a WP:OR example farm. Many of the examples given are not actually wererats, but anthropomorphic rats, such as the Skaven, as wererats would have to be therianthropes. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Ratmen, ratfolk, and wererats are very common in fantasy media but I'm not finding any reliable sources covering them.  D r e a m Focus  13:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment At the very least, the article would need to be renamed and refocused, as the intro specifically talks about therianthropic creatures called wererats, where as many of the examples that then follows are just a collection of a bunch of random rat-related creatures that do not fit that definition at all, many of which are never actually referred to as "wererats". The current article is also mostly unsourced, and has quite a bit of WP:OR that should not be kept, regardless of the fate of the article.  Perhaps this could be simply used as a Redirect to Rat, with an added mention in that section of rat-like men being a common element in fiction, until some kind of general ratperson article can actually be developed with reliable sources.  Rorshacma (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
 * REDIRECT to Rat. I agree with Rorshacma's reasoning.  Just redirect it for now and if anyone wants to use the information in the history of the article over there they can.   D r e a m Focus  17:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Puddleglum 2.0 (How's my driving?) 19:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete due to lack of sources. Bermicourt (talk) 19:38, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Better idea: move this to Rats in fiction (or perhaps Rats in popular culture), merge in the content from Rat, and we will have more complete coverage of the general subject. BD2412  T 04:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Move: I wholeheartedly support BD2412 's idea. I don't know how much there is to use in the cited book by Hall, but the thesis by Fusco features only one specific instance of a wererat in fiction, but talks about it as though a wererat should be well-known, without need for further explanation. That suggests to me we should have a definition on Wikipedia somehow. Daranios (talk) 09:04, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Rat. I don't see enough good secondary sources to support an independent article, but there's a good target there in context of a proper article. Jontesta (talk) 22:55, 14 May 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.