Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set

GURPS 4e Basic Set

These artilces 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 offering 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 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 While the proposal here includes GURPS In Nomine, this is simply a redirection to In_Nomine_(role-playing_game) which was an independent product long before a conversion to GURPS was done.Naraht 17:25, 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]

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]