Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set

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 a snowball keep, without prejudice to renomination of the individual articles. The nominator is advised by this editor to try doing things one at a time, rather then in a all-at-once, all-or-nothing manner. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 09:39, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS 4e Basic Set

GURPS 4e Basic Set (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

These articles are advertorials that fail the WP:SPAM guidlines, designed to promote books that do not meet Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) criteria. The articles do not contain real-world context or sourced analysis, nor do they offer detail on a work's development, impact or historical significance, but are solely a detailed summary of each book’s content, and as such fail WP:Fiction. They have not received coverage from reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject; rather they cite links to advertorials, product launch announcements and an award given to them from a related trade association. These articles have been created to promote both the books, the games and the publishers in contravention of WP:SPAM. The books in question are:

GURPS, GURPS Bestiary, GURPS Blood Types, GURPS Shapeshifters, GURPS High-Tech, GURPS Atomic Horror, GURPS Autoduel, GURPS Mysteries, GURPS Space,GURPS Supers, GURPS Ice Age, GURPS Middle Ages I, GURPS Timeline, GURPS Alternate Earths, GURPS Alternate Earths II, GURPS Black Ops, GURPS Cabal, GURPS Callahan's Crosstime Saloon, GURPS Horseclans, GURPS Illuminati University, GURPS Planet of Adventure, GURPS Reign of Steel, GURPS Riverworld, GURPS Terradyne, GURPS Uplift, GURPS War Against the Chtorr, GURPS Mixed Doubles, GURPS Traveller, GURPS Traveller: Interstellar Wars,GURPS In Nomine.

Wikipedia is not a book promotion site like Amazon or Ebay. Notability to come. --Gavin Collins 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep/Merge: I thank Gavin for drawing attention to the poorness of some of these articles.
First of all: does this proposal includes GURPS itself? It seems not, but there is an AfD tag on its page.
Secondly: as already partially said in the discussion about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Technomancer, you seem to believe that the publisher of these books looks for free advertising. In the field of role-playing games, GURPS and its supplements are amongst the most well-known: it would be a bit like saying that Bloomsbury Publishing spams Wikipidia to sell more Harry Potter copies.
Thirdly, and more to the point: other people will be able to say more about the notability of these books, but a quick search shows that some of them received awards and recognitions (some of them before the diffusion of the Web). For instance, GURPS Space won the "Best Roleplaying Supplement of 1988" Origins Award (see the list of winners).
So, my suggestion is to keep the two or three truly notable books, and merge whatever is worthy morging of the rest, in GURPS or in List of GURPS books. --Goochelaar 17:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sadly for article GURPS itself and the related books, there aren't any independent references to books, journals or magazines, so there is no apparent evidence of Wikipedia:Notability (fiction). Worse still, the links to the publisher's website and extensive cross referencing with related GURPS suggest this group of articles were created mainly for promotional purposes. The number and lenght of the articles makes this a difficult call, so perhaps this is a topic worthy for discussion on WP:WPSPAM, but sadly I can't raise start such a discussion as that would be soliciting. --Gavin Collins 18:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep some/Merge some This is probably the best solution. For example, GURPS Illuminati University won the 1992 Origins Award for Best Role-playing Supplement (and I just added that fact to the article). I'm sure there are others than won the Origins Award and/or some other notable award. I will try to locate some more and add them to the articles. While I understand the author's intention for the mass nomination, perhaps it would be better if they were done individually and then each could be judge on their own notability (or lack thereof). --Craw-daddy | T | 17:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC) And, not having looked at all of the articles, yes I would agree that a few of them appear particularly spammy in nature, but I don't think it's a deliberate attempt on the part of the company, but probably some overzealous admirer of the game system (but I could be wrong). These could (and should) be rewritten/redirected. --Craw-daddy | T | 17:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close/relist seprately - These should be judged on individual merits. Artw 18:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist as above. As for notability, several of these books have also received Outies or at the very least have received "honorable mentions" for the Outies, game awards given (I think) by Out of the Box Games (not affiliated with SJG). [1] --Craw-daddy | T | 18:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist please so they can be judged on their individual merit Corpx 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and Relist: For one thing, it would be very hard to claim that these are promotional articles, given that most of them are years out of print, and ascribing malicious intent to the same is at best a WP:AGF violation. For another, many have received industry awards, making a prima facie case for notability; calling them "related" trade associations works only if you assert that these associations are functionaries of Steve Jackson Games, a curious argument for which I'd be interested in seeing your evidence. As it stands, it is difficult to take seriously a nomination that lacks evidence of taking seriously the notability of each case.  RGTraynor  18:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No malicious intent asserted. Industry awards are a common in the gaming and publishing industry as a method of promotion, but some are more notable and independent than others. This group of articles should be reviewed together; for they are interlinked, follow the same pattern of advertorial, but individually and collectively, evidence of notability is sadly lacking. --Gavin Collins 18:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Well, let's see. Do you claim that the Origins Awards are neither independent nor notable in the gaming field? That's the one most commonly cited. Beyond that, looking at your nominations more closely, some already redirect to GURPS (GURPS High-Tech, for instance), others already have references to independent sources (GURPS Mysteries, GURPS Reign of Steel). Was this just a blanket portmanteau of GURPS title articles on Wikipedia?  RGTraynor  19:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Given that he listed In Nomine (role-playing game), which isn't even a GURPS product (it's made by the same company, and a redirect exists at GURPS In Nomine because there's a book of that title quantifying the setting in GURPS terms), I'd say signs point to "Yes, this was a blanket nomination". Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 23:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Hmmm, Origins Awards are amongst the most notable awards in the gaming industry, given out for more than 30 years by the Academy of Adventure Gaming Arts and Design. Two of the books mentioned above have received Origins Awards, disproving your claim that "individually... evidence of notability is sadly lacking." Please relist them individually. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply If the Origins Award is not notable, then its article should be proposed for deletion. If it is notable, then games that have won it, and especially ones that have been inducted into its Hall of Fame, are notable by analogy with the WP:BK standards. In any case, WP:FICT is an inappropriate standard; GURPS is a set of rules for a game, like Monopoly (game) or football. Similarly, the books are physical products with ISBN numbers. They are not fictional concepts like the Land of Oz or Prince Hamlet. Ehrbar 00:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These articles are not advertorials. As noted previously, many of these have been out of print for years and aren't likely to see a new edition. If some of the articles are poorly written, then they should be revised, not deleted. This is frankly one of the more bizarre nominations for deletion that I've seen. Rray 19:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Does a ... For Dummies book satisfy the notability requirements (at least for the main GURPS rulebook)?  :) GURPS for Dummies by Stuart Stuple, Bjoern-Erik Hartsfvang, Adam Griffith ISBN 0-471-78329-3 I don't know what (if any) affiliation the authors of that book may or may not have with SJG, but clearly the publishers of the ...For Dummies series thought it was notable enough for its own book. --Craw-daddy | T | 19:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I'd forgotten about that book. Thanks! FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*Comment I had a look at the Dummies book on Amazon.com, and it says on the cover it was "Created in partnership with Steve Jackson Games". There was no material in the preview chapters regarding GURPS development, impact or historical significance or any other evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins 22:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all If they're going to be nominated as a group, then I have to say keep all of them. Some of the books on this list may not be notable, but some of them certainly are. Relisting separately may be advisable. -Chunky Rice 20:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close This is far too complicated a situation to handle with AFD, and as such, this should be taken up with another method instead of just dumping things here for deletion. Try for example, contacting the Wikiproject on Roleplaying games. Plus you already put one of these on AFD. I'm sorry, but your shotgun method of nominating for deletion without even considering the consensus of existing discussions is quite unfortunate. I'm not quite sure you're engaged in bad faith actions, but I do think you would be well served to consider other methods. As far as notability goes, did you think to *look* for other independent references? Because if you didn't, that's a problem. If you didn't find them, I can only assume you missed the numerous Origins awards and nominations, the numerous articles about GURPS and Steve Jackson Games in existing publications. For example [2] for one review of many or [3]. Note how many awards are there? Heck, it's a Hall of Fame member. FrozenPurpleCube 20:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - A very strange nomination, I feel, equating GURPS to GURPS War Against the Chtorr strikes me as bizarre. --Agamemnon2 21:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This game system and individual supplements, GURPS Space amongst them have won awards. As always with poorly written articles the solution is to copyedit and improve not delete. Ok its easier to delete than to put the effort into trying to improve an article, but that shouldn't be the default position. As to the contention that this is advertising, would such accusation would be made against films, cars, novels etc.KTo288 21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist individually; until then, Keep all. This is a grab bag nomination, and will throw out the baby with the bathwater. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote most of one of these myself, and as I have no interest in promoting the book or connection to Steve Jackson Games I don't see how it can be considered spam. I wrote the article simply because I happened to have the book in question and remembered a lot about the details in it. This AfD is clearly indiscriminate, IMO. Bryan Derksen 23:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I wrote the articles for GURPS Cabal, GURPS Monsters and GURPS Shapeshifters. All three books are listed for sale on Amazon.com, which as far as I know is still considered a reliable secondary source. Even if they were out of print and unavailable...so what? "Notable" isn't the same thing as "currently popular." They'd each still have a unique ISBN which proves they weren't printed in some random teenager's garage for the five guys in his gaming club. 63.215.28.84 01:54, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close and relist GURPS itself is highly notable, even though article needs some work. GURPS 4e Basic Set also seems notable. As for individual source books, they are different enough that relisting them separately is probably the way to go. I don't think this is spam per se, but is more likely over-enthusiastic fans. --Phirazo 03:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. GURPS is a pretty significant RPG. Some of those books, though...maybe not, but when you're throwing them all together like that...maybe a list would be the right way to go here? --UsaSatsui 03:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. For those of us who've heard of GURPS, but aren't RPG weenies & may want to know more.... Trekphiler 15:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC) (BTW, I'm an occasional D&D player...)[reply]
  • Close and relist individually The notability of the Core GURPS set is difficult to dispute, given the number and type of awards it has won. While the article could be improved, simply being substandard is hardly worth a call for deletion, let alone a poorly considered and undocumented shotgun nomination like this. However, many of the worldbooks and supplements that currently have their own pages can and should be merged into the core article, most of them utterly fail notability on their own, but could be made part of a comprehensive core article. Leon Stauffer 23:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is inaccurate in most points. Edward321 01:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep GURPS itself will have many, many reliable secondary sources. Some of the books listed might not, but they should be listed separately and considered individually. Sci girl 05:35, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the only relation In Nomine has to to the GURPS 4e Basic Set is that one supplement for the line offered rules for converting to the third edition of GURPS -- not even the edition in question. However, Mr. Collins has nominated this award-winning game for deletion based solely on this one supplement. --Master Forcide 07:44, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per above arguments asserting notability. Weak due to {{notaballot}}, which I just added. Giggy\Talk 07:47, 26 August 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GURPS_4e_Basic_Set&oldid=1137866651"