Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS 4e Basic Set (2nd nomination)


 * 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 per clear consensus. However, proponents of article are strongly encouraged to locate and cite reliable secondary sources; press releases from award-givers are less than ideal.-- Visviva 05:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS 4e Basic Set
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is for gaming instructions in PDF format, but content fails to demonstrate notability under WP:BK or WP:FICTION. Links to publisher and similar products identifies this as WP:FANCRUFT.--Gavin Collins 08:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep First of all, the nomination as it is is flawed: this book, being the instruction manual for a game, does not fall within WP:BK (which explicitly excludes instruction manual) and even less within WP:FICTION (this manual is not about fictional concepts: it contains real-world rules for a real-world game). Second, I am not sure that tagging somebody's work as "fancruct" is the friendliest way to initiate a fruitful exchange of views (see my message to Gavin and his reply for more on this). Third, and more to the point, this is a major new version of one of the most notable role-playing game systems. In its context, this is comparable to Mac OS X or Windows Vista, and has already received awards in its own right. --Goochelaar 11:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have amended the nomination: To clarify, it is the addendum/update to the instructions that is in PDF format, not the game guide itself. Don't get me wrong; I think Fancruft is not a bad thing when it expands our understanding of a book, a film or game when it is supported by independent sources, but this article lacks fails to do this. To correctly understand this book's context, it is more like a "how to" play GURPS guide, equivalent to a Readme file in Windows, rather than a new release of Windows. --Gavin Collins 22:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment to the comment Not that this in itself are a bad thing, but you seem not to have much of a familiarity with this or other role-playing games. The object we are talking about is in itself the whole of the game. There are no board and pieces, or computer, or game field, other rules or anything external this could be a guide to: paper and pencil are often useful, some people also like miniature figures, and dice are necessary, but this is the game. --Goochelaar 22:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment No, we're talking about the two-book set. No-one is suggesting that GURPS be deleted. Percy Snoodle 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Idle Comment Incidentally, Mr. Collins has attempted to do just that in the past. --Master Forcide 20:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep as notable. Article is not about a PDF instruction set; nominator is misinformed. -- JHunterJ 12:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I missed this. The only mention of PDF is to a booklet to update from 3rd to 4th edition. --Goochelaar 12:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Redirect to GURPS. GURPS, the role-playing system, has been inducted into the Adventure Gaming Hall of Fame (see Origins Awards), so notability of the general system has been demonstrated in this fashion (amongst others), and this is an updated version of that system. As was noted in the article itself this version has received other awards (and been nominated for another Origins Award).  As noted above by Goochelaar, and others in similar AfD nominations, WP:BK and WP:FICTION don't apply to these books, so the nominator shouldn't be using them as guidelines.  (As a minor addendum, this has also been published in book form, not just PDF.)  If it helps satisfy the nominator, I shall add the ISBN numbers to the article so that people can locate it in other sources than solely from the publisher.  Links to similar products are only relevant as they point to other resources for use of these books.  --Craw-daddy | T | 12:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete / merge - While GURPS may be notable, this individual book (or probably any individual work in this series) is not - Notability is not inherited. Unfortuantely, when it comes to certain topics (webcomics, RPG's, etc.) Wikipedia seems to have a large portion of the community that conveniently forgets our rules and guidelines in favor of stuff they like.  /Blaxthos 14:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you not notice the award that this particular book won (not some other version)?  --Craw-daddy | T | 14:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply - The "award" is as non-notable as the content of this article. ;-)  Non-notable awards from a fansite does not embue any additional notability.  /Blaxthos 16:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I'm sorry, but I dont see any notability from this award.  It is essentially a fan site run by 1 person.   Delete per lack of coverage from RS Corpx 15:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Nomination incorrectly describes the subject and appears not to understand the terms notability or fancruft. This is especially frustrating becuase people have addressed these issues with the nominator in his numerous other attempts to get Gurps articles deleted.  The award is not from a fansite or made by an individual and claiming such shows those posters have not read the sources at all. Edward321 16:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep how many times do we have to go through this?KTo288 20:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment that's not an argument - see WP:NOTAGAIN Percy Snoodle 15:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep No reason at all to delete this per multiple knowledgeable user comments above. This is not fancruft or spam or a PDF, and the nominator clearly displays his unfamiliarity with the topic in his nomination. Rray 02:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. GURPS is a notable game.  GURPS 4e Basic Set is not a notable set of books.  If this article isn't deleted, it sets a precedent for a slew of crufty pages - if the notability of GURPS is enough for GURPS 4e Basic Set, then presumably we can have articles for the first three editions, and of every edition of every notable game on wikipedia!  Percy Snoodle 10:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment see also WP:NOTINHERITED Percy Snoodle 15:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, nominator is fishing. --Agamemnon2 11:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question what does "fishing" mean in this context? How does it affect the notability of a pair of books? Percy Snoodle 14:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep, GURPS is highly notable and this is the core rulebook. The nominator has shown a lack of discrimination in nominating GURPS-related articles for deletion previously, I'd like to see a bit more of a justification for deletion than just his say-so. Bryan Derksen 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As noted above, notability is not inherited. GRUPS may be notable, but this book in and of itself is not.  The "award" referenced is from a website that itself fails notability criteria.  /Blaxthos 00:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two awards are referenced, and the other one is an Origins Award nomination (for this book in and of itself). -- JHunterJ 01:00, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment a nomination isn't a win, and the other two awards are of the ten-a-penny website kind. The book set fails WP:BK. Percy Snoodle 06:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge to GURPS. This is the current main set for GURPS -- if GURPS is notable, this is notable, because this is GURPS, at the moment. I'd be fine with seeing it merged into the main article, since it is central to the topic, but clearly discussion of it is necessary for a complete description of GURPS. Gavin, your statement "To correctly understand this book's context, it is more like a "how to" play GURPS guide, equivalent to a Readme file in Windows, rather than a new release of Windows" seems to indicate, as Goochelaar mentioned, that you don't understand what these things are that you're nominating for deletion.  While clearly one doesn't need to be an expert on a subject to discuss its notability for the Wikipedia, a basic knowledge of what the subject is seems important.  Windows would exist without a readme; GURPS would not exist without its basic set, because the game is something created by the players based on the guidelines in the basic set. Do you understand what we're saying?  I've tried to make this point in several of these discussions and haven't gotten a clear reply.  Pinball22 14:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question You say "if GURPS is notable, this is notable, because this is GURPS" - so why should there be two articles? Percy Snoodle 14:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said, I'm fine with it being merged into the main GURPS article because of that. I could also see a reason for keeping it separate, though, in that the main article is more of an overview of the history of GURPS and how it generally works and this article could specify more of the details of the current edition's basic set. Pinball22 14:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment The article states that the book "contains the core rules...need to run a GURPS campaign". I apologise in advance, but my interpretation is that (a) GURPS is a game system, and (b) that the GURPS 4e Basic Set is a book of rules and instructions on how to operate or navigate this system. Therefore if a player reads this book, they will then know "how to" play. Whether you call this book a set of gaming rules, an instruction manual or a "how to" guide is a semanitc variation on this idea. Where there may be some misunderstanding is that, as the game involves role playing and is not computer based, Pinball22 is asserting that the book and the game are one and the same. However, his her assertion is incorrect; a role playing game is played in the imagination, but GURPS 4e Basic Set is seperate from the game, and as such is a non-notable instruction manual.--Gavin Collins 15:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok... now it's clear to me that you do understand what a pen-and-paper RPG entails, thanks. I don't think you can call the core rulebooks non-notable and the game notable, though, as the game wouldn't exist without the books. (I'm a she, BTW. :) Pinball22 16:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but notability is not inherited... just because the game writ large is notable doesn't mean that notability is conferred upon one of its rulebooks. Each rulebook needs to meet with our notability guidelines as a standalone entity -- not because it deals with a subject that is notable.  For example, the game of Tennis is obviously notable... is my USTA umpire rulebook also notable and worthy of USTA Umpire Rulebook?  Of course not.  /Blaxthos 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an entirely logical comparison -- tennis exists without a rulebook in a way that an RPG doesn't. Now, as I said, I think it's fine to merge this information to the main article, since the game doesn't exist without this book, but just deleting it for being a rulebook in the same way a tennis umpire's guide is a rulebook is a misunderstanding of what it is. Pinball22 17:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am happy that we are finally getting to the point. But, Gavin, if "a role playing game is played in the imagination, but GURPS 4e Basic Set is seperate from the game, and as such is a non-notable instruction manual", as you say, which is the game for which GURPS 4e Basic Set is the instruction manual? --Goochelaar 16:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a trick question? Because GURPS seems like an easy answer, and GURPS has its own article which no-one is suggesting deleting.  Percy Snoodle 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No trick question! It is just that following Gavin' reasoning, one could get to the conclusion that no rulebook can ever deserve an article, because only the game as an abstract thing deserves it. If you want, there is the subtler question whether playing GURPS's 4th edition is playing the same game as playing GURPS 3rd edition. But these only philosophical questions. Here, of course, the only point is to ascertain the notability of this particular set of manuals, and this in turn apparently boils down to whether the listed awards (and, possibly, some reviews) are enough to confer notability. --Goochelaar 10:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Anything more than a cursory glance shows that the two "awards" are themselves from non-notable entities. I wouldn't argue that all rulebooks are inherently non-notable.  What I would say is that we should raise the bar regarding what constitutes notability for game rulebooks beyond reviews and awards from dime-a-dozen fansite/gameblogs.  /Blaxthos 14:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You need to take another more-than-cursory glance at the second award mentioned, the Origins Award, which is from a notable entity. As already mentioned, it's a nomination, not a win, but that doesn't make the entity non-notable. -- JHunterJ 16:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nor does failing to win a notable award make it notable. Percy Snoodle 22:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the closest thing to WP:N you can find is a nomination then I think it might be a bit of a reach... /Blaxthos 22:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 15:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Sufficiently notable. &mdash; RJH (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Question How so? Which guideline does it meet, and how? see WP:NOREASON. Percy Snoodle 08:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.