Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity


 * 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 Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Given the leaning to Delete, and the lack of notability suggested, a redirect is indicated Black Kite (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

A minor cursed item from Dungeons and Dragons games. Fails to establish notability, only referenced to D&D rulebooks/magazines and the Order of the Stick webcomic. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 14:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, per Manual of Style/Writing about fiction. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable as the nomination already points to sources and more are easy to find such as Interactional Dynamics in Role-Playing Games. Warden (talk) 18:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument would carry more weight if the object in question were actually mentioned on the page pointed to, or indeed anywhere in the book. Cusop Dingle (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source discusses items which cause sex-change in D&D and the effect this has upon the participants and the scenario. This provides the real world context and perspective which is advised by the Manual of Style which you cite above.  An exact name-check is not required because it is our policy that we are an encyclopedia not a dictionary.  The precise title of a topic is unimportant because it is the meaning and content which matters.  Warden (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The precise title is important so that we know what it is we are talking about. Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:TITLE, titles are indicative not definitive. That's why have a move function, so that the title of articles can be adjusted as the topic develops.
 * Follow-up: a Google Books search for "Girdle of Femininity/Masculinity" hits only comics and D&D manuals: Google Scholar gets zero hits. It seems unlikely that one would be able to describe the subject matter from the perspective of the real world, in which the work of fiction and its publication are embedded.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Google searches of this sort are weak per WP:GOOGLEHITS. The formal name of this artifact is quite clunky and generic and so will be referred to in various ways.  I found the source specified by looking for "sex change" and "D&D".  If you're not searching widely in this way then your searches carry little weight. Warden (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, searching for "sex change" "D&D" will find pages, such as the one cited, which do not even mention the object in question. It is mere conjecture that this object is being referred to in such references.  The pages you find might be sources for Sex change in Dungeons and Dragons, but do not even begin to carry weight as sources for this article.  Cusop Dingle (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A title change of that sort would be fine by me as the source indicates that there are spells which can do this too in D&D and it makes sense to cover these things together as their effects upon the play of the game and the players seem similar. And as D&D is just one of many similar games, it might be sensible to go further with a title such as sex change in role playing games or sex change in popular culture.  Warden (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this particular discussion has lost contact with the question of whether this article should be retained or not. Cusop Dingle (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's kinda his M.O., don't worry too hard about it.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The claimed "source" mentions an item that switches the wearer's sex in one sentence and doesn't name it by name. That means we'd have to perform considerable WP:OR to upgrade this source to even a trivial name drop. It's completely useless. Reyk  YO!  22:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nonsense &mdash; looking to see what third-party sources do with the topic is the opposite of original research.
 * Please refrain from using harsh and potentially derogatory comments such as "nonesense", Reyk is perfectly right and you know that, it is original research if you have to make assumptions to link the source to the topic. "Seeing what sources do with the topic" is completely irrelevant here since the source doesn't mention the topic (which is a fictional item and not the theme of sex change in D&D).Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete- I can find no reliable, independent sources that mention this subject. Reyk  YO!  22:12, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While published by the owning TSR, Dragon (magazine) covered it in issues #104, #172, & #215, and it appears in the Baldur's Gate computer game. Dru of Id (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Unless someone else can find out just how extensive the coverage is in Dragon issues 104 and 215, which are mentioned in the article, I don't see anything in this article that goes beyond the gamebook information and a sprinkle of original research. —Torchiest talkedits 23:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). BOZ (talk) 05:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per BOZ and per WP:ATD. No, it doesn't merit its own article.  Yes, there is enough independent coverage that we should cover it somewhere.  This seems to be a great candidate for inclusion in a "dungeons and dragons magic items in popular culture" article, should one ever be forthcoming. Jclemens (talk) 16:23, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge, agree with great ideas by and . &mdash; Cirt (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable independent sources, fails WP:GNG.Folken de Fanel (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 *  Merge Redirect to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). It's an interesting curiosity amongst D&D magic items, but probably does not have enough notability to stand on its own. I can't think of any sources explicitly about the item like some others have had. The examination of the item from the RL gender-identity standpoint seems like it might have some notability traction, but it really seems like that's a different topic and about an event that could be brought about in any of a number of different ways in a game (wishes, curses, etc.), and as mentioned above, the Girdle is only mentioned in passing in those resources. - Sangrolu (talk) 14:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update - I changed my above vote to delete. Taking a closer look at the article in question, it occurs to me that there's not really that much that is worth merging. It mentions facts like "dealt with by remove curse", totally run-of-the-mill for cursed items in D&D, and some original research and appearances in webcomics and fantasy video games (also non-unique.) - Sangrolu (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So can you clarify why you chose delete instead of the more WP:ATD-compliant redirect? Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I hadn't intended to recommending against a redirect; I'll update that accordingly. I merely don't think the majority of the content of the article is notable enough to retain and think it would be nothing but clutter in the proposed merge article, Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). - Sangrolu (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2012 (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.