Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynkhab (2nd nomination)

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 with list of demon lords. (non-admin closure) Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 07:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lynkhab[edit]

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

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 00:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to list of demon lords and protect the redirect. The article was recreated without any evidence of notability being provided after a previous AfD closed as a merge. That's irritating. Josh Milburn (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per J Milburn but protection seems a bit over the top, as the IP address waited 3.5 years since the previous AfD to "work on it", and I do note that one primary source had been published in the interim, so it's hard to state unequivocally that this was done in bad faith, even though I agree it should be merged at the present time. We have TTN to bring such things to our attention, so I don't see the harm in leaving such a de-redirected article unprotected until and unless there is specific disruption. Jclemens (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge per above, and agree with Jclemens about protection being premature. BOZ (talk) 03:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, per the previous discussion. Surely it isn't necessary to protect the redirect unless someone actually causes this problem a few more times. FalconK (talk) 05:56, 7 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.