Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Werevamp


 * 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 Mythological hybrid. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Werevamp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged as having questionable notability since April 2010. Still non-notable. Contains original research. Searches reveal only passing mentions. Mr. Guye (talk) 19:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Redirect - the examples are almost all original research; being examples of instances where these two things have converged in popular culture, without using the term in question. Hybridism is not a new concept in science fiction or Gothic literature, but not every combination of creature X and creature Y is the subject of a notable term.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 00:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Mythological hybrid. We've already got a perfectly good article on mythological hybrids.  There isn't any sourced content, so a merge isn't really appropriate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Nailed it. Comment amended.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 22:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This does not seem like a likely search term, so why redirect the page instead of deleting it? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 05:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlikely but possible (given some sources use the term) and redirects are cheap.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 09:18, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I thought this was made up by the article creator, but I was quite surprised to find that this is actually a thing. If you do a search for the term (especially on Google Books), it turns out that a lot of people use it.  The problem is that there isn't really anything to say about this; the hits are all basically trivial mentions or dictionary definitions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect per discussion above. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2015 (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.