Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transhuman Space

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 keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Transhuman Space

This article is for gaming instructions does not demonstrate notability under WP:NOTABILITY. The article content fails WP:POV for lack of references and identifies this as WP:FANCRUFT.--Gavin Collins 08:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete due to notability concerns that may be adressed during the course of this AfD. I think you are being a bit hard on this article. If notability could be established it isn't that bad. A bit overly detailed but that's an easy content issue to fix. MartinDK 10:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep; one award brings it halfway to WP:N, and as the first RPG of its type I'm loath to see it go. Percy Snoodle 12:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The article needs impromvement but a google search of " 'Transhuman Space' game" nets about 79,000 hits. Of course not all of these are about the game but a good enough portion seem to be Johhny-turbo 13:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't have a copy of the magazine, but in case anyone does, there has been a review of this book in Vol 20, No. 1 of Prometheus, the journal of the Libertarian Futurist Society, one of the few RPGs that has ever been reviewed by this magazine. :) --Craw-daddy | T | 16:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having won an overseas award and being reviewed in a non-RPG-specific journal seem to make it quite notable. --Goochelaar 18:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? This is well within the bounds of notability. Strong keep. If articles were created for minutiae such as individual characters etc., those might be deletable. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well written article on award winning subject. Artw 21:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Worth keeping, although I think some words should be added on the conceptual elements of the series, namely, how it links to the real-world concepts of post- and trans-humanism. Hejincong 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons outlined by others, including awards, unusually wide reviews, etc. Whateley23 02:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Among other things, is a reference for Orion's Arm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.253.208 (talk) 07:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on awards, independent sources shown by previous comments. Nomination also incorrectly refers to a roleplaying game as 'gaming instructions', which is as accurate as referring to Monopoly as 'gaming instructions'. Edward321 23:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep for many of the same reasons as above. Li3crmp 14:30, 8 September 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.