Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Displacer beast
to Monsters_in_Dungeons_%26_Dragons#TSR_2009_–_Monster_Manual_(1977), where it is mentioned in context. This was one of the early monsters and there are sources across many authors for it spanning 30 years of coverage. There is not enough independent sourcing to meet , but basic facts about the monster are verifiable, e.g., a brief mention in https://books.google.com/books?id=6H7eCwAAQBAJ&pg=PT328&dq=%22displacer+beast%22+history&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjWsd-IyannAhXqHDQIHetiDIkQ6AEwBHoECAQQAg#v=onepage&q=%22displacer%20beast%22%20history&f=false The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters. It is a plausible search term and it is Wikipedia policy per  to prefer alternatives to deletion, such redirects, for verifiable material. Hence, I think redirect is a reasonable policy-based course of action. None of the editors recommending deletion have given a policy-based reason as to why deletion is better than redirect; claiming "doesn't meet " is not enough to preclude a redirect. As such, their recommendations to delete are flawed. --&#123;&#123;u&#124
— User:Mark, 19:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Stance: merge
Cited policy: WP:GNG||WP:ATD||WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)