Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Infinite Worlds

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 ɑʀкʏɑɴ 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GURPS Infinite Worlds

This book of gaming instructions does not have any independent claim for notability as required by WP:Fiction or any other notability criteria. The article contains too much trivial detail of the book’s content for an encyclopedia entry, since it does not provide context or sourced analysis of the book’s impact or historical significance, of which there is no independent evidence. --Gavin Collins 08:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep From the article " It won the 2005 Origins Award as Best Game Supplement." How can you say this isn't notible? It is an award winning book. Turlo Lomon 08:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Gavin, you asked about the Origins Award on the talk page, and was replied to explaining this. You asked about it on the RPG board and replied to with this. Why exactly are you nominating something that has proven its notability? Turlo Lomon 09:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A prize awarded at a gameing convention is weak evidence of notability. See the comments of the Admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination). --Gavin Collins 09:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Right, he said "less then ideal", which is different from "not allowed". When a book wins an award which is considered the most prestigious in the industry... I didn't want to bring this up beforehand, but what exactly is the issue you have with RPG books? Turlo Lomon 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Additional Comment I want to add that the admin that posted that comment specifically contradicted Wikipedia:Notability (books), specifically the 2nd point. Turlo Lomon 10:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to suggest that this argument indicates a lack of understanding, quite understandably, as to the poition of Origins in the industry. This isn't a gaming convention, it's the gaming convention. It's not a bunch of fans getting together, it's the major industry event. SamBC(talk) 10:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Turlo Lomon above. The nominator's apparently going through the entire list one by one. If had his druthers, there would not be a single GURPS article on Wikipedia. --Agamemnon2 11:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - Ignoring an Origins Award as a token of notability is a bit like ignoring an Academy Award for a movie. --Goochelaar 12:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong, speedy keep nominator might not recognise Origins Award, but the rest of the gaming world does. Percy Snoodle 12:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep by the above reasons. If the nominator is unhappy by the tone of the article, there are plenty of templates to suggest a rewrite is necessary. And, yes, Origins awards are clear evidence of notability. HOw many times must we have this same discussion about them? --Craw-daddy | T | 13:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 14:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]
Keep. As everyone else has said, winning an Origins award is one of the highest possible accolades for an RPG book. Yes, the article could use some work, but that's not a reason to delete it. Pinball22 14:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An Origin Award is enough for notability, and that particular point is even referenced. As has already been said, Origin Awards are to RPGs as Oscars are to films. J Milburn 17:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've resisted saying somethig like this until now, but I think it's clear that the nominator is trying to make some sort of WP:POINT, but I'm not sure what it is. I also feel that he's now reached the point of disruptive editing, specifically in regards to "rejecting community input". His nominations of articles for AfD, in spite of repeated assertions by many parties that Origins Awards are indeed notable awards [1], [2] (and promising "not to argue the point" on one occasion ([3] see end of section), and then nominating that same article for AfD anyway), are done in bad faith. He continues to nominate articles, even though they clearly satisfy notability guidelines by being award-winning games/game supplements [4], [5], and seems to try to argue that people who are in disagreement with him must be somehow connected to Steve Jackson Games, involved in some conspiracy to promote their products on Wikipedia [6], [7]. --Craw-daddy | T | 03:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:POINT argument would seem to be supported by WP:VPP#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games. This does seem somewhat dodgy. SamBC(talk) 10:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, winner of major industry award. That said, while deletion shouldn't be forced, the subject might be better served by being in a master article. SamBC(talk) 10:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, as per above. If the Orgins awards are not enough then what is the golden measure? RPG companies generally do not release their sales data to the public. Web Warlock 10:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or Redirect to List of GURPS books. I for one do understand and acknowledge the importance of the Origins award... but I just don't see how we can write a non-stub article here. I searched and found only one review, on RPGnet [8]: not reliable, anyone can sign up and write reviews. Nothing else that looked reliable, except for things from the publisher. It seems like the only thing we can reliably say about this book is that it won an Origins award -- which we can and do say in the list of GURPS books. A short summary of the work is appropriate, but is already there. I searched LexisNexis too; no hits in the last 10 years. We accept awards as suggestive of notability: something that wins an award will likely be written about elsewhere. But I don't see that this is the case here, and no one has presented any other sources. Mango juice^talk 13:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please read Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Fancruft_and_Role_playing_games before commenting on this AfD - Fosnez 14:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Gavin is making a point of trying to delete every GURPS article regardless of its merit, and shows no understanding of the topic.KTo288 21:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Origins award is clear sign of notability, as had been repeatedly explained to nominator well before he nominated this article. KTo288's and Craw-daddy's concerns about these nominations are quite valid, as this is not the only thing about these articles that the nominator has had repeatedly explained to him. Edward321 04:44, 17 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.