Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brain in a Jar (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. Delete. Please note, I don't have a problem with mention of this instance of a brain in a jar as a mention in the Isolated brain article, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus or a need for a merge. A redirect isn't plausible either, as it is highly unlikely that someone would type this string of characters, complete w/ parentheses and an ampersand. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  18:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Update. This link appears blue because the history was restored, and a new redirect was created by user request.  Cheers,  Keeper   |   76   |   Disclaimer  20:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Brain in a Jar (Dungeons &amp; Dragons)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non notable Dungeons & Dragons monster appearing in, as far as I am aware (and I'm reasonably well-read on the subject) a single supplement, with only a single page or so. Very briefly mentioned in a couple of reviews, but that is already included in the recently expanded article on the supplement it appears in, Libris Mortis. Some of the text is also copied from the entry in LM. To be honest, I think this would struggle to have a decent article on an in-universe Wiki. Bringing it here instead of prodding as D&D monsters are generally a reasonably contentious area. J Milburn (talk) 12:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 14:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable monster in universe, dosn't appear in any in-universe fiction, attempts to WP:SYNTH out of universe sources (and missed the origional Lovecraft referance) but no secondary sources support those refereances.Coffeepusher (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 *  Delete , per Coffeepusher. It also appears in Munchkin.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to merge and redirect per other discussion, stick it over on isolated brain or Brain in a vat with a mention. It's kinda far flung, I suppose, but I guess by a long shot it is a merge (put the mention in) and redirect (!).  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 16:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Merge to Brain in a vat - as an entry it is non-notable, but as a general creature outside of this one book I can think of many references. Gamewise we have this one, the Ravenloft one, the Mutants and Masterminds one, and that is not even getting into the mass of B-grade movies out there that feature it. It could be rewritten at a future date. Web Warlock (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Gleemax as the card, online community and its icon, and namesake have their origins here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shadzar (talk • contribs) 17:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really understand what you're saying here- this monster came before the website, and this monster has nothing to do with any MtG card. Redirecting to an unrelated website is a silly idea. J Milburn (talk) 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Gleemax is a MtG card from Unhinged. it is a brain in a jar. the idea for the card was taken from this creature. http://ww2.wizards.com/Gatherer/CardDetails.aspx?name=gleemax WotC new online commuity initiative is a place for all gamers to meet online and discuss any and all games. this was annoucned at GenCon Aug 2007 as the Gleemax initiative or somesuch. and the new online community that supports discussion of all games, the site being hosted by WotC; is called GLEEMAX. www.gleemax.com as the video from Gamer_Zero aka Mike Lescault presented to the world via youtube as an introduction to those not able toattend the convention GLEEMAX is a large brain in a jar as present on the website www.gleemax.com as its icon. this of course was taken from the MtG card, which was taken from the "brain in a jar" creature. therefore i suggested that while the brain in a jar may not be significantly noteworthy it has meaning for the origin of Gleemax both the MtG card and the new website commuity initiative presented by WotC at GenCon 2007 along with their announcement of D&D 4th edition. while i don't want the article to sound like a promotional gimick that it all was/is. it is the origin of several new things as well as old from WotC. i hope this better explains what i was talking about and how these things relate to each other. shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * See Isolated brain, actually. Gleemax would have more likely than not been based off of that; isolated brains predate D&D itself. -Jéské ( v^_^v  +2 Pen of Editing ) 03:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * while looking over the articles here on wikipedia i not a few things. the book from which this monster claims to be from was published in October 2004 Libris Mortis. the Card came form a set published in November 2004 Unhinged (Magic: The Gathering). the card itself is cited as a joke form WotC. seeing all 3 the current D&D game which this creature is a monster of, the card, and the website Gleemax, i think they are all related and connected to WotC and thus should be mentioned within the company. even though other places may have had the idea before. WotC currently uses and stresses this idea. i don't agree with their advertisement thusly, but i see they are too connected to not be related to each other and why i suggested one of the WotC related connections rather than something that predates them. right, wrong, or indifferent, it is just a gut feeling about where this goes. shadzar-talk 02:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Brain in a vat Isolated brain as suggested above below. I would oppose merging to Gleemax, as even in Magic's cracked canon he is an individual character, not *just* another brain-in-a-jar. -Jéské ( v^_^v  +2 Pen of Editing ) 18:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * not the card Gleemax, but the article about the website is where i said to merge it as the "brain in a jar" concept is one they are using to bring many of their games, and hope to bridge many gamers for not only their own products, but all games. as i stated just above. and of course is jsut an idea not one that i am bound and determined to see happen, just wanted to clearify what i meant and was talking about. total deletion of the article and its content would not offend me in the least! shadzar|Talk|contribs 22:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it seems non notable, and while I'd like to keep much of the D&D stuff here, that doesn't include every obscure monster. However, I would also oppose merging to Brain in a vat, as Brain in a vat is a philosophical thought experiment looking at how a brain can be fooled into believing that it is experiencing the real world when it's sensory data is been faked by an outside agency. In this it is similar to Descarte's Demon. The Brain in a jar is about a brain being kept alive without a body, as per Isolated brain. Isolated brain would thus be a better candidate to merge it with. - Bilby (talk) 22:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm changing this to Merge to Isolated brain. Isolated brain already has an appropriate fiction section, and a mention there wouldn't be amiss. - Bilby (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Not notable, doesn't seem to meet WP:N or WP:V 68.40.58.255 (talk) 01:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — another one of thousands of non-notable D&D pages. A mention in Brain in a vat or Isolated brain would seem appropriate; 'ware of giving undue WP:WEIGHT in either of them. Cheers, Jack Merridew 07:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No secondary sources, no assertion of notability. Fails WP:RPG/N and WP:N. Percy Snoodle (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable stock character with no reliable secondary sources to demonstrate real world notability outside D&D. This article fails WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:WEASEL and WP:WAF as well, so none of its content is worth keeping or merging.--Gavin Collins (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
 * delete. I'd like to keep or merge this but I don't see any of the merge proposals as being substantially connected enough to justify the matter. Hopefully at some point some scholar with two much time on their hands will write a paper about disembodied brains in fiction and we can include this there. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.