Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Monsters

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 Redirected to List of GURPS books ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Monsters

Book of gaming instructions that fails WP:BK or WP:FICTION. The article content appears to have been cut & pasted from List of Monsters which sugests this is Fancruft. The article itself does not provide context or discussion of the books merit, and may have WP:COI authorship issues. --Gavin Collins 14:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't the first GURPS related article you're nominating today. Since all of these are probably going to get the same decision AfD-wise, I recommend that you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list multiple related pages for deletion and nominate accordingly. Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 14:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Tried that already and was advised to nominate on an individual basis - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set.--Gavin Collins 15:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless somebody can provide significant coverage of this book Corpx 16:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus 19:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Keep (based on newly-added external links) or Redirect to List of GURPS books as with other subjects in Gavin.collins' path. -- JHunterJ 12:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC), amended 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Are you the author of this book, J. Hunter Johnson? --Gavin Collins 17:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not really relevant here, but covered by Talk:J. Hunter Johnson in any event. -- JHunterJ 11:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As both author of the book, and editor of the article, you are advised to have a look at the WP:COI guidlines. --Gavin Collins 08:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. You are similarly advised: "Editors who may have a conflict of interest are not barred from participating in articles and discussion of articles where they have a conflict of interest". Like I said, it's not relevant here. If you have an issue, please bring it up in the appropriate place (my talk or the talk of the article which you feel has been edited in violation of WP:COI). -- JHunterJ 12:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of GURPS books as already mentioned. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, based on new reviews found, or barring that, redirect as above. --Craw-daddy | T | 21:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've added two reviews to the article, though if other debates about GURPS articles are to go by, some of you will set little store by them. The thing is that with the advent of the web, the traditional independent paper RPG magazine has basically dissapeared, whats left is the online equivalent and the company mouth pieces,neither of which seems to satisfy those in favour of deleting. The GURPS books are unique amongst RPG source books in that they are open, they are designed to stimulate imagination and player interaction rather than binding players to the rules, the system allows tweaking to suit the game you are playing not the game the authors think you should play. The books are great resources for GMs and players using any game system in everything from characters and adversaries to items, vehicles and campaign settings.KTo288 02:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Keep Deletion is unnecessary and not helpful. Rray 02:37, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books. Website reviews aren't in general non-trivial, so article fails notability test. Redirection helps to prevent recreation. Percy Snoodle 08:43, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment From what I understand, in these days of the web, not many gaming magazines do reviews of role-playing games anymore. I think Dragon hasn't really done reviews in many years (and, of course, has recently stopped being published). Pyramid does some reviews, but being the company mouthpiece of Steve Jackson Games, doesn't review their own games. Generally all we're left with is web-reviews. I agree that some of them are "trivial" (i.e. don't satisfy WP:N requirements like being user-submitted reviews), but other sites like RPG.net have "staff writers" that do reviews for the site. We shouldn't discount them all just because they are web-only. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely. Perhaps we can discuss this in the RPG WikiProject (or has this already done?). Do you think it is conceivable to define specific guidelines for notability of RPG books? --Goochelaar 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not a game guide. JIP | Talk 10:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of GURPS books. — RJH (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, as almost always. --Goochelaar 20:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)'RESULT'.[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.

ELIMINATORJR 21:41, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]