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) , with the history being preserved for anyone who wants to merge any useful content. There are several assertions here that the topic is notable enough for a standalone article, but precious few that provide the sources to back up this claim. Even among the better-reasoned !votes, I'm only seeing one substantive reliable source being presented. References to magic bags in other media aren't especially relevant; if someone wanted to write an article about that topic, they are welcome to do so, but that material is out of scope here, and so those arguments carry no weight. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bag of holding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article was restored by User:Rosguill, but continues to fail WP:GNG, similar to the now-deleted Magic satchel article. It is largely referenced to primary D&D related sources (see WP:PRIMARY) and contains an example farm of similar items in works of popular culture. The symbolism section still doesn't indicate WP:SIGCOV. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm neutral here, the article was restored as part of an RfD outcome without prejudice to further renomination for AfD or merging. May get around to actually reviewing the sources and making a real !vote. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 18:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - At the very least, the entire "In other games and media" section needs to go. Not only is it completely comprised of trivia, cited either to no sources or to pieces of fiction, it also contains a number of items that are not Bags of Holding, but to items that someone thought were similar enough to include here, which is complete WP:OR. As a whole, though, this also fails the WP:GNG. The article on the broader topic of "Magic Satchel" was already deleted due to the failure finding any amount of significant coverage in reliable sources, and this specific example of the concept is the same. There are plenty of results on searches, but these are either primary sources, unreliable sources, or very trivial mentions that do not discuss their notability in depth at all. Even the "symbolism" section is nothing but trivial mentions. One of the examples is someone just using the term when talking about a completely different topic, and the usable coverage in this article is literally "someone used the term in a sentence once!". That is not remotely WP:SIGCOV, and pretty much all other results in searches are the same. Rorshacma (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update I would probably also be fine with a Merge of some sort to an article like Hammerspace. As mentioned in my comment below, as well as Hobit's, while there really is not much in the way of WP:SIGCOV on the magic item itself, there are a lot of minor uses of it showing that the term is used fairly commonly, so it would probably be worth it to document it in the appropriate broad topic. Rorshacma (talk) 17:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I respectfully disagree with the assertion that the sources in the Symbolism do not constitute significant coverage. An entire chapter of the Routledge text is based on the D&D Bag of Holding: "The Invisible Bag of Holding: Whiteness and Media Fandom," by Benjamin Woo. The nomination and supporting votes seem to be based on the content of the article, which could be improved, rather than a considered assessment of the sources--both those cited in the article and those not cited but for which WP:NEXIST. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 20:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the delete votes claim that all of the sources outside of the Sybolism section are primary. This is inaccurate and, dare I say, illustrative of a general lack of attention to detail commonly found among serial deletionists. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There are no secondary sources that address the subject WP:DIRECTLY and WP:INDETAIL, as described in our general notability guideline. Notwithstanding the singular secondary source about white privilege (where white media fandom is very much whole other subject), this article is wholly cited to primary sources. Wikipedia doesn't create endless spinoffs of primary content, and is supposed to keep primary content in WP:DUE weight as part of an encyclopedic article. On top of that, much of that primary content is coming from WP:GAMEGUIDEs, which aren't independent of the subject, and which also leads to game-guide style descriptions that are WP:NOT suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) (as it was before it was restored) per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 20:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NEXIST, as explained by AugusteBlanqui, and our policies WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Note that there's still more to put into this as it does not yet mention that Mary Poppins had one – see Myth, Symbol, and Meaning in Mary Poppins, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Since Mary Poppins pre-dates Dungeons and Dragons by a good deal, she most certainly did not have one. This article is specifically about a particular D&D magical item, not the concept of "larger on the inside" objects in general. Mary Poppin's bag is actually mentioned at Hammerspace, the broader topic that talks about the concept. Which actually makes me think that, if anything, this D&D item could possibly be mentioned and redirected there. While the many brief mentions of this D&D item in sources is not enough to support an independent article, they are probably enough to warrant a being discussed at that article. Rorshacma (talk) 14:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• IAR keep sources are light, and merge isn't crazy. But this idea has certainly entered the mainstream [1], [2], [3], and [4] among many many others. Yes, I know about WP:GHITS but this has about 1,000,000 such hits as well as more than 4000 news hits. It's a common enough phrase/idea that we should probably document it. That said, I'm not thrilled with the current article--too scattered. I'd rather hear more about the history of the idea. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• "hometheaterreview.com" says "Don't bring your Bag of Holding or twenty-sided dice to the D&D Building in Manhattan. I mean, you can, but expect a few strange looks. In this case, "D&D" stands for Decoration & Design". So that's not about D&D and not about the bag of holding.
• New Statesman' piece called "The time that I saw my balls on a giant television" is about checking for testicular cancer. "I think you should also take a few moments now and then to examine yourself for lumps, just because there’s nothing wrong with checking what treasure is in your Bag of Holding, and I don’t think you should feel at all bad or embarrassed about having to go to see a doctor if you have any concerns". Bag of holding is cutesy term for scrotum. Not really about the bag of holding, right?
• Gizmodo's "We're Almost Certainly Getting Some New AirPods—What Will They Be?" is a piece about rumored new Apple AirPods. "As someone who uses his pockets like a bag of holding, the AirPods diminutive size compared to some wired earbuds or folding Bluetooth headphones can’t be beat, especially if you like to travel light" is the only mention of the term.
• The Macworld piece is a review of a leather messenger bag. The only mention is "I’m willing to say that if life were a D&D campaign, this is as close to a Bag of Holding as you’re going to get."

These four sources are passing mentions and do not help with notability. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the links I provided are all passing mentions. But they all assume the reader understands the reference to what a "Bag of Holding" is. The point of those links is to show that the term is in common enough use outside of the context of D&D that we should have an article if possible. The sources in the article are maybe above the bar, but the ubiquity of the term is such that I think we should have an article (thus the IAR part). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) or better, to a list of DnD magical items. Outside of primary sources (novels, games), there topic is mentioned only in passing here and there (see section on "Symbolism"). Until we can find at least an in-depth paragraph about this, preferably in at least two sources to satisfy GNG requirement of in-depth coverage, I don't see how this can warrant a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Davidson. Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is refered to directly in secondary sources and the Symbolism section seems worthwhile to me. Due to the widespread nature, shown both by Hobit and the appearances in other media in the article, I think this article provides a piece of knowledge to users of Wikipedia would want, so it's better for Wikipedia to have it than to delete it. Speaking of widespread nature, the term is also used in scientific literature, in addition to the mentioned example: this dissertation uses knowledge about the bag of holding to distinguish a sub-population from the general public. Responsibly and Accurately: Dwelling in Imagined Worlds also uses it as an example, though I cannot access it to see the extent. Can anyone else? Lastly, Of Dice and Men explains and praises the Bag of Tricks, sub-topic of this article. If all that together should still not be seen enough to keep the article, a proper merge to Hammerspace seems the best course to me. Daranios (talk) 10:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentMerge - well I see that you guys are intent on keeping this thing. I've cut the worst of the WP:OR and off-topic material from the article, but it remains weakly-sourced and poorly-focused. Me, I'd merge it to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) which would make a lot more sense as it is both stated to be one of those, and would make a useful short section there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is not enough WP:SIGCOV about the fictional item beyond the game. Description, variations and "interaction with other magical items" are all WP:INUNIVERSE and do not help establish stand-alone notability. It might be iconic for D&D, but so are coins for Mario and golden rings for Sonic. And a single scholar using a fictional item as a metaphor doesn't somehow mean that item is notable. I already took out that part. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Soetermans, I am confused about your approach: You critize that the article does not contain enough beyond the game. But you have also removed a part where a scholar extended the concept beyond the game. Secondly, you say "a single scholar using a fictional item as a metaphor doesn't somehow mean that item is notable". If I say we found three, will you call for five? Daranios (talk) 13:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing a RS to make for a more compelling deletion argument is bad form. I restored it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daranios, sorry if my reasoning wasn't clear. What I meant with "beyond" the game, is how potential reliable sources treat the object outside of its in-game use. So creation ("the bag of holding was created by...", "it was inspired by..."), development ("initial playthroughs with the bag of holding were...", "it was decided to expand the inventory room because..."), reception ("Jane McDoe of Random Media Outlet considers it to be..."), legacy ("Hideo Kojima said he was always fascinated with the bag of holding...", "Remedy Games' setting of Control was based upon..."), that kind of information. That connects it to the game, but still meets stand-alone notability. Mentioning the metaphorical usage of the scholar is not notable, because it's not about the actual fictional item, but about its function (hence it is a metaphor). And it's a poor one at that, they still have to explain what it actually does ("white privilege is much bigger than it appears from the outside"). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi AugusteBlanqui, I don't see why the usage of a fictional object as a metaphor by a scholar about white privilege would somehow make the subject notable. I still don't think it's should be there, but we can wait out this discussion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the closer says. If the result is delete then the source is immaterial, if the result is otherwise the closer can indicate the extent to which an entire book chapter premised on the D&D Bag of Holding contributed to GNG. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation. I would follow AugusteBlanqui's side of the argument here, but let's see what's decided in the end. Daranios (talk) 16:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep There are reliable sources for this article that is longer than most crufty DnD articles and all the content is not random in-universe stuff.★Trekker (talk) 22:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi *Treker, what sources would those be? Right now, it's primarily referenced by WP:PRIMARY sources, like the Dungeon Master's Guide and the actual role-playing game. I've already stated that a metaphorical use of the item in a scholarly piece doesn't help with notability. The section "In other games and media" is trivial at best: that the boat in Zork "fuctions as a bag of holding" doesn't say anything about the actual fictional item. The Pratchett one is WP:OR / WP:SYNTH. And the 8-bit Theater is referenced by a post on some on a random internet forum. Also in this discussion, I don't see any significant, independent and reliable coverage by several sources. I'm having a hard time finding reliable sources, if there are, I'd like to see them. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Soetermans, a question about the the appearance in Discworld: Is the quote incorrect? Otherwise, how can it be original research that this is an appearance of a bag of holding (with typical Pratchett addition), when the source directly says it's "a classic Bag of Holding"? Daranios (talk) 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daranios, I'm not questioning that it's mentioned in Discworld, but I'm saying that a mention in another piece of fiction doesn't help establish notability for a fictional item. It's WP:OR / WP:SYNTH because we're not pointing to a reliable source that says that Pratchett references the bag of holding, but it's cited directly. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:58, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Soetermans, to quote the corresponding guideline, OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." As it is stated directly in the source, no analysis or synthesis is needed, no conclusion needs to be drawn. Therefore, in this case, it is not original research. Daranios (talk) 13:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete obviously insufficient sourcing to pass WP:GNG Chetsford (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD Lightburst (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or merge as suggested by several editors, per WP:ATD. The only independent source here is off topic. This article was already a redirect before it was restored, and then went right back to AFD. These discussions shouldn't go around in circles, and there has been a consensus that this shouldn't be a stand-alone article. We should all support the spirit of WP:ATD, and we can mention things in the context of a more substantial article with better sources. It's better to have one well-sourced list than several non-notable (or questionably notable) stubs. Jontesta (talk) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back as suggested above. Bearian (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons), item is not notable on its own, as it clearly fails WP:GNG, but it deserves a mention at that page, which it does not currently have. I would prefer deletion over keeping the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to me notable enough, especially if Hermione's beaded bag, which sounds close enough, was added. Are there no other examples that could be added? Gah4 (talk) 04:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, this article is on a specific D&D item, not the general concept of magic bags found in all of fiction. A similar object appearing in Harry Potter, that does not even bear the same name, does not confer notability to the D&D item. The idea of magical containers that hold more than they appear have existed long before D&D, and listing a bunch of similar, but completely unrelated, examples does not belong in the article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge to the target already suggested. Per lack of notability about this particular bag in D&D as a subject. Maybe some magical bags are notable, which is extremely questionable anyway, but this article is about a particular one that isn't notable. You can't fake it by trying to cite a movie that was created years before D&D was even around or by referencing an article about Apple AirPods. Those things are completely irrelevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore redirect back to Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). Object isn't notable and doesn't have WP:SIGCOV in sources. Even if you can verify it exists there is nothing to say that isn't just the obvious game mechanics of it being a magic bag. Adding other magic bags from other games is making the article worse, not better. The D&D magic item article is the right way to handle it. Archrogue (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge I've not analyzed the sources in detail but there is obviously enough there to have built a real and encyclopedic article. North8000 (talk) 15:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi North8000, could you elaborate where there is "obviously enough there"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant is the it is a real article, with sourced covering of a range of areas....it's not just a repetition of the game instructions. So I was saying that there's enough sourcing there to do that which is a part of the intent of GNG. Again all in the context of "I've not analyzed the sources in detail". One other factor is that the games itself is very notable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment / re-merge / re-redirect if it helps produce a consensus. In my earlier, comment I supported deletion because still this article is resting on one third party source, which is ostensibly about white privilege and only refers to this bag to make a wordplay on Peggy McIntosh's invisible knapsack theory of white privilege. I stand by my earlier comment, and my support for deletion. But I'm adding this comment as I've dug into the edit history, and found that the recent consensus was to cover this in a shorter mention in a larger notable article. Wikipedia shouldn't be a WP:BATTLEGROUND, and we should avoid unraveling consensus, as much as possible. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, for this suggestion it would be interesting to know what could be a parent topic, with what could it be put together, what could be sources for related concepts? ZXCVBNM mentioned the Magic satchel, but that has been has been rejected, deleted and discarded rather than combined with something to make use of it, so we don't know if something helpful was there. Daranios (talk) 18:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How about a section in Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons) or else a new D&D sub-article like Dungeons & Dragons) game objects North8000 (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I see a lot of people suggesting the current "Magic Item" list. The redirect previously pointed there,, and it's already mentioned there. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as far as I have seen, the only mention there is the See also-link pointing here, which obviously will no longer be useful when it would be redirected. Or did I overlook something? So to do a proper merge, a new type of section would need to be created in Magic item (Dungeons & Dragons). I can see some merit in that, but as the sources, such as they are, also point towards the use of the term outside the game (as a metaphor or otherwise), I overall stick to my "Keep" opinion. Daranios (talk) 10:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Considerable levels of notability, an iconic item in all kinds of gaming contexts. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 20 July 2020 (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.