Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goristro

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 merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Goristro[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 03:33, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 03:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BOZ. Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per BOZ. Aoba47 (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons). All of the sources regarding the creature are primary, published by the creators of D&D. Looking through the target article, it seems like all of the information in this article is already present, so there's really not much else that would actually need to be merged. 64.183.45.226 (talk) 21:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect only as there's been consensus these are not explicitly capable of being sufficiently merged, therefore there's no need for unnecessary work. SwisterTwister talk 22:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Demon (Dungeons & Dragons); nothing to merge as this is an self-referenced essay. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:42, 8 October 2016 (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.