Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolfwere

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 Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 03:09, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wolfwere

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

Seems to be a relatively newly invented term associated with fantasy role-playing games. I came across it because it was tagged for WP:WikiProject Mythology; it clearly is not a valid mythological topic. I did a search for relaible sources, and only fantasy gaming sites came back. On Google Scholar, just typos for "wolf were". Unsurprisingly, nothing from JSTOR. Not notable. Simon Burchell (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). Pax 00:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wolfwere (Dungeons & Dragons). This a plausible search term, whose Google search reveals the dominant usage to be in Dungeons & Dragons and closely related RPGs. --Mark viking (talk) 10:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 12:12, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Cheers. - Mattwheatley (talk) 12:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Given this is D&D, it's likely the term will enter common use soon enough since the rest of modern fantasy tends to follow D&D, but for now it's not an independent subject. JT_dale^Talk~ 12:43, 9 March 2015 (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.