Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Codex of the Infinite Planes


 * 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 Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Codex of the Infinite Planes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article does not establish notability. TTN (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related page because it's a similar article that does not establish notability either:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 22:25, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that this third party review mentions both items (out of hundreds presumably covered in the game book being reviewed). Still looking for sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:22, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * .... and here is a second reference for the second item, so Keep Jacinth of Inestimable Beauty, jury's still out on the nominal/primary AfD'ed fictional item. Jclemens (talk) 03:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the original AfD item is also a named card in Spellfire (see here for listing), and that might be a good redirect target. That product predates the widespread adoption of the Internet, and so I have not yet been able to find RS commentary on it, but that is yet another TSR game, in addition to the various D&D games, to include such a magic item. Jclemens (talk) 03:41, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge or delete both. Those secondary sources are a step in the right direction, but it's not enough. The review is a passing mention, and the OSU book is tantalizing, but without having it available, it looks like a passing mention as well. It appears to be an examples of the increasing narrative complexity of the game, and not much of a commentary about the fictional artifact itself. Context matters with sources, so someone who has read it might be able to say otherwise. Better yet, if anyone has link to that article, I would like to see it, it might potentially be useful for other articles as well. I think I actually had that Spellfire card at one point, but again, very, very in-universe product integration-type stuff. There might have been substantial coverage in InQuest or Scrye or similar, but until those sources show up, there's not enough to support an article. Since Spellfire itself lacks reliable sources, this seems like a precarious foundation for building new articles, which is the main problem all these AFDs are facing. Grayfell (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 10:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge both to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). A couple trivial mentions is not enough to support the creation of an independent article.  We need significant coverage, not verification that something exists.  An in-universe, unsourcecd article could exist on some fan wiki at Wikia, but this is a general-purpose encyclopedia with inclusion criteria.  There doesn't seem to be enough coverage to support an article at this time, but if someone can locate significant coverage in offline, third-party sources, the article can be recreated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2016 (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.