Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guardinal

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 no consensus. Technically, either keep or merge - there is no clear preference here but little support for deletion. A merge discussion may be initiated at the talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guardinal

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

This article fails to establish notability. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is at least one review stating the importance, or failing that merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 19:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the review mentioned by BOZ and the Paizo (non WotC, non TSR) source indicate multiple secondary source coverage. Merge would be an editorial decision, and entirely possibly a correct one, but on the merits of this case, keep. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Boz's suggestion. I'm really not sure I understand Jclemens's comment. One mention in one review, though it counts for something, does not give us enough to justify a separate article. If there are more sources (or a reason to believe more exist) I'm all ears, but, right now, this falls well below the notability line. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:09, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BOZ.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 01:32, 28 August 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.