Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gehenna (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 redirect to Outer Plane. As a compromise between merge and delete. What if anything to merge from history is up to editors.  Sandstein  13:09, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This fails to establish notability. It has all primary sourcing. I can't really tell why the redirect was removed after another editor redirected the page. It seems to be that there was a circular redirect happening? Not sure how in any way that's justification for a page. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Hello! Not sure how in any way that's justification for a page. Definitely not a justification for a page, but it is a justification for not deleting one, at least not until that bug has been addressed. This is an aside to your main arguments below. I don't care, personally, but as a neutral user, this was the sequence of events that led me to revert and object to automatic deletion: I followed a link from Outer Planes to Gehenna (Dungeons & Dragons) which was redirected back to Outer Planes. After finally making my way to the original Gehenna article, I realize there was too much information - some of it historical - to simply cut and paste it back into Outer Planes. I seem to have stepped into a content war? Unintentional, but I'll give my thoughts below. Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 12:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete - WP:GAMEGUIDE. Wikipedia is not a gameguide and everything in this article is a game guide. No notable material. I recommend there be no redirect. The title is too convoluted to be a likely search term on its own, and Gehenna should not be redirecting to D&D at all. A google search of "Gehenna D&D" has the first hit as the forgotten realms wiki, which is an appropriate wiki project for this information. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree that everything in this article is a game guide. As a non D&D player, I would not be able to somehow understand how to "play" or otherwise use this fictional place in Dungeons & Dragons from reading the article. It doesn't read like a game guide to me. However, I do find the descriptions of its denizens and geography interesting, for what it's worth, and gives me enough context to be able to compare it to other fictional places, and to understand (enough, for my purposes) what it means in the Dungeons & Dragons universe. Furthermore, there is historical information in the article that is not interesting to me, personally, but is decidedly not "game guide". Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - Rendall, you raise a lot of issues in several places. I shall briefly try to answer them all here. (1) This is indeed a game guide. As you say, you are unfamiliar with D&D. The full D&D game guide constitutes multiple volumes of rules. This page would constitute information you would find in the guides. Unlike you I have played and still occasionally play D&D, so I am speaking from experience. Publication history is not straight out of the guide, this is true. But meh, it is publication history of the guide. (2) An online player's wiki is not a reliable source as it is user generated. See WP:RS. (3) GNG is WP:GNG - the general notability guidelines. For this page to remain it must contain notable content. What constitutes notable content? Read the GNG. If you cannot find how it meets GNG then it should go. (4) Regarding your keep argument: I agree that D&D is fun and lots and lots of people play it and know about it. D&D as an article is also clearly notable, as would be articles about Gary Gygax etc. However, the fact people enjoy the game does not make individual guides and plots of the game notable for an encylopaedia. That is why we have WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete -Non-notable fictional location, comprised mostly of in-universe plot information, only using primary sources. Searching for additional sources on the D&D version of the term came up with nothing in reliable, secondary sources.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete insufficient WP:RS to demonstrate it passes the GNG Chetsford (talk) 17:41, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't know what "GNG" means. Could you please expand on 'insufficient reliable sources'? In what way are the sources are unreliable? Even if granting WP:RS as true, why isn't it sufficient to ask for improvements / more reliable sources? Edit: I withdraw the question! I've familiarized myself with these policies. Moving on! Rendall (talk) 20:34, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "I don't know what "GNG" means." Yes, that seems to be the case. Chetsford (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to be snarky, fellow. I'm just trying to find my feet here. The Intro encourages people to participate, but that seems kind of mean. Seems rather against the spirit of what we're trying to do here, which is to make a good Wikipedia for everyone Rendall (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't mean for that to come across as brusque and, in retrospect, I realize that probably sounded unnecessarily harsh. However, notability is one of the core tenets of Wikipedia and it's critical individuals familiarize themselves with our notability policies before advancing from reader to editor. The WP:TWA is a good starting point. Chetsford (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Understood! No worries. You are right that I needed to familiarize myself with it, which I have done, and I better see your points. I think you all have developed a shorthand that is a bit hard for newbies such as myself to break. That is not to say impossible though! Everyone, please keep up the good work! Rendall (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge to Outer Plane Rendall (talk) 15:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Outer Plane. BD2412  T 02:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and therefore fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG, minor gamecruft and FANDOM material.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge to Outer Plane and redirect. In contrast to what's said in the deletion request, this article has one minor secondary source. At least that part, and maybe a bit more based on primary sources, should not be missing from Outer Plane, which in the Gehenna section simply refers here at this time. Daranios (talk) 18:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Outer Plane and slightly merge to give it the same capsule treatment as all the other entries on that page, as this article is definitely a search term based on page views. I'd love to find a source for the historic influences section mentioning how it's based on the concept in Judaism, but haven't been able to yet. —Torchiest talkedits 04:47, 2 February 2020 (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.