Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons)

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 Outer Plane. So Why 09:34, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (Dungeons & Dragons)[edit]

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

This does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to Outer Plane. BOZ (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep while initially included in Dungeons & Dragons, it has later been released into the SRDs for both D20 and Pathfinder. In the 30+ years since its creation, it has made it into TV tropes and other popular culture content. Note also that this is an extremely hard topic to research, given the plethora of other uses for the base word (yes, including that 70's game with the broomstick...) Jclemens (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The D20 SRD is not independent of Wizards of the Coast, who own D&D. Pathfinder is independent, but it's an open question as to whether the inclusion of a feature in Pathfinder adds notability to the feature as it appeared in D&D. Josh Milburn (talk) 23:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree. Like the GPL, once something is put out for anyone to use, it is no longer a dependent on the creating organization. Jclemens (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not clear to me what you disagree with. If you believe that the D20 SRD is independent of WotC, please provide some evidence; I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that they published it. (If you believe that they published it but that it's still independent, I'm afraid you've lost me.) If you think it's a settled matter that inclusion in Pathfinder adds notability to this as an element of D&D, I'd appreciate it if you could point to the guideline/policy on which you're relying. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- not notable. The article content is largely unsourced original research. What's cited is to in-universe publications, such as: Gygax, Gary (1978). Players Handbook. There's nothing to merge as the article does not cite 3rd party sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:38, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 09:34, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning merge, unless some decent third-party sources can be identified. I confess I'm struggling to understand Jclemens's arguments. Josh Milburn (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Outer Plane or delete given the lack of notability. I find Jclemens' argument to be extremely weak. Also, TV Tropes (while I greatly appreciate that site) does not support notability as it is user-generated. Aoba47 (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2017 (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.