Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Space (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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 06:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS Space
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

These gaming instructions have not received coverage from reliable independent secondary sources and so there is insufficient evidence of notability to warrant a stub. The article does not contain context or sourced analysis, or detail on a work's development. Fans of the GURPS series will argue that notability is inherited, or derived by a trade award, but this appears to have been a flash in the pan that does not satisfy WP:Fiction.--Gavin Collins 11:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I get 36,000 Google hits for the set and the GURPS system is definitely notable. The article in and of itself is well-written, though it does need to be sourced.  Is notability inherited?  I think in cases of major releases such as this it is.  Into The Fray   T / C  12:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Origins Award demonstrates its notability.  (Origins Awards are "trade awards" as much as Ocars or Grammys are "trade awards".)  "Notability inherited" arguments are irrelevant as this is an award-winning book in and of itself.  --Craw-daddy | T | 16:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As already said (here and elsewhere), Origins Awards are the most important award in the sector. (As already said several times too, this and similar articles have nothing to do with WP:Fiction, as they do not discuss fictional topics, but a real-life ink-and-paper manual. WP:Fiction covers Prince Hamlet (the character), not Hamlet (the tragedy); Alyosha Karamazov (the character), not The Brothers Karamazov (the novel); World of Final Fantasy VIII (the fictional setting), not Final Fantasy VIII (a game you can buy in a shop). So, once more, one could be led to doubt whether Gavin has a firm grasp of what these articles are about.) --Goochelaar 17:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Origin Award winner. (Equivalent of an Oscar or Grammy). We have gone this circle before. Turlo Lomon 19:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Additional Comment Also, nominating an article about an award winning book as an article about fiction shows a clear misunderstanding on the material. Turlo Lomon 19:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Award winner and notable, of all the GURPS books this is probably the second or third most notable.KTo288 20:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:POINT. I mean, honestly.  By the way, what are they?  Game instructions, or fiction?  (for the record, neither)  --UsaSatsui 03:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above. Web Warlock 03:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Nominator mischaractises notable industry award as a mere 'trade award', incorrectly states there are no independant sources. Nominator incorrecly refers to this as a 'book of gaming instructions', which is like refering to Monopoly as a book of gaming instructions.  Nominator has been repeatedly corrected about these errors, yet continues to make them in their repeated nominations.  Finally, WP:Fiction is about as releveant as WP:PORNBIO - this is not a work of fiction, this is a game. Edward321 05:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cripes, I don't know if I want to see the game where WP:PORNBIO applies, but it wouldn't shock me to find out SJG released it. --UsaSatsui 13:23, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That would be the Book of Erotic Fantasy by The Valar Project. Turlo Lomon 05:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep award winner, bad faith nom, etc, etc, again. Percy Snoodle 09:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 13:52, 18 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.