Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Middle Ages I (second nomination)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 and redirect to List of GURPS books. Mackensen (talk) 17:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Middle Ages I

edit
AfDs for this article:
GURPS Middle Ages I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This book costs $22.95 but fails Wikipedia:Notability (books). Links to publisher and other GURPS products suggests this article also contravenes WP:NOSPAM. --Gavin Collins 08:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect to Steve Jackson Games. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 08:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep see earlier mass nominations this week for significance of GURPs, that it reads like an advert is unfortunate and easily rectified, the price has now been deleted. GURPs source books are well researched and put together and because of the open nature of the game system the details can easily be adopted to other game systems. GURPs source books are a significant resource to RPGers (the proper kind, not the computer kind).KTo288 09:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - GURPS is notable, this isn't per WP:BK. Percy Snoodle 12:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of GURPS books, possibly merge there. There may be better sources for this book, but it does predate widespread internet usage, so the existing reviews may not be easy to find. I do strongly disagree with your SPAM accusations here, the organization used in this case is logical, and not commercial in nature. Really, would you not expect a link to the publisher, or the rule-system for the game? I'm afraid that this isn't a case of SPAM at all, and you'd be better off not making that argument. There isn't even an external link to the SJG webpage on the book. FrozenPurpleCube 13:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge, or redirect - This seems like an attempt to delete multiple GURPS articles one at a time after the mass deletion failed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rray (talk • contribs) 14:09, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is the sort of thing recommended when a mass nomination fails. However, I think in this case, a simpler and more effective solution would just to be redirect everything that lacks good sources or significant content. FrozenPurpleCube 14:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge - I fail to understand why Gavin.collins, in spite of the usual suggestion to assume good faith, assumes that spammers are at work, rather than fans of the game. Not that any of this has much impact, the notability of the subject being the main issue. As an apprentice inclusionist, I'd incline to keep this article, but I won't throw a tantrum if it will be deleted and some information injected in List of GURPS books. --Goochelaar 17:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge with List of GURPS books. There simply not enough content or sourcing here to justify a separate article. Merge for now with no prejudice to recreating the article with more content and sourcing at a later date. -Chunky Rice 17:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge. I'm inclined to think there are probably appropriate third-party references (at least in the form of reviews) out there somewhere for all of the GURPS sourcebooks, but I'd be OK with seeing List of GURPS books expanded with information merged from this article. I'm a little confused by the nominator's ongoing belief that all our coverage of GURPS is spam after the AfD discussion for the list... Gavin, is there some specific reason that you continue to view all these as spam? I don't find the articles to be in a particularly promotional style, and Steve Jackson Games doesn't need the Wikipedia's help to sell books... they've been doing that just fine by themselves for nearly thirty years. Pinball22 20:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong Delete along with all other such game guides unless there is something really special, which has not been demonstrated in this case. . An article for the series will be more than enough. There seem to be zero references for notability of this title, and no cited published reviews. Mass noms are usually rejected when t here is some reason to think some but not al of the items notable. So is this particular one notable?. None of the keep arguements have given any evidence for that at all. DGG (talk) 07:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC) (correction: game guides or similar manuals--DGG)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't think of RPG sourcebooks as "game guides" (at least, not in the sense that WP:NOT refers to) -- while they tell you how to play the game, since the game isn't a specific thing that's always the same, it's not the same level of "how to". I haven't found any really good references for this particular book yet, so as I said, I'm fine with seeing the basic information about it (and any others without significant third-party references) merged to List of GURPS books. There definitely is coverage out there for a lot of the GURPS books, though -- a search in rpg.net's reviews shows 260 results for GURPS, for example. Pinball22 13:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree to the extent that these books should not need to demonstrate that they are "really special" to be kept, merely that they are notable. -Chunky Rice 13:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a strained argument to call this a game guide. There's nothing in the article about running a medieval campaign, or making a character in it. The book *itself* might, through some tortured logic, be considered such, as the game itself is what you play with the book, which does provide instructions, but I do not believe that it was the section of WP:NOT is referring to, as it's not talking about the subject of articles, but the content. FrozenPurpleCube 14:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If a bit of nit-picking is allowed, I am not sure that GURPS books can be judged under the criteria of book notabilty either. The guideline explicitly excludes from its scope some categories of works, among which reference works and instruction manuals, and GURPS books share something of both. This alone shows that a modicum of familiarity with the subject is needed to take part in a discussion, otherwise the very criteria under which to judge notability might not be the right ones. For those who are not familiar with role-playing games and GURPS in particular, they are are a particular form of storytelling needing imagination (provided by the players), rules (provided by handbooks like this one), and often some background material about the setting of the stories to be told (provided by the players and by any of a number of sources, among which again handbooks like this one - if you are going to play a story set in the middle ages, you better know something about it). This told, I agree that this particular book is not the most notable of the lot. --Goochelaar 17:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that does make sense to me, since they aren't novels or works of fiction on their own, so much as they are reference works and instruction manuals. And it's not the least notable of the lot. That would be GURPS Middle Age, the book on how to play a character over 40, but less than 65.  :) FrozenPurpleCube 19:44, 29 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_Middle_Ages_I_(second_nomination)&oldid=1142198608"