Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of GURPS books


 * 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. Krakatoa Katie  05:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

List of GURPS books

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This list of books is little more than a publishers catalogue, and as such is prohibited advertising or other spam without relevant content per WP:Spam. As most of the articles about the books listed have not been created or are about to be deleted if they have, they are ideal AfD candidates. The list fails to demonstrate notabilty per Notability (books). --Gavin Collins 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strongly keep: as for it being "spam", it could be said of any article containing references to present books or products. Moreover, this article lists all GURPS books, many of them out of print, so it can hardly be spam (I'd be quite glad if I could find a copy of GURPS Conan, for instance). As for the structure of the article itself, Wikipedia is also a reference work, and an article like this one is not dissimilar in its function from (don't gasp) List of compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. --Goochelaar 11:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a detail: I am not sure about "most of the articles about the books listed have been or are about to be deleted". The page is desolately rich in redlinks, but the articles were never written: apparently somebody put in too many hopeful links. Could I see the deletion logs for the deleted articles? --Goochelaar 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You are correct - none have been deleted, just not created, and I have amended the AfD accordingly. For instance, articles have not been created for the many books listings, such as this classic: GURPS Castle Falkenstein: The Ottoman Empire. Honestly, I don't think Wikipedia is the place for this list or any of these books: perhaps the publisher's own website, Amazon or Ebay would be better. Notabilty yet to come. --Gavin Collins 12:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. GURPS is certainly notable, and a list of its sourcebooks seems important for encyclopedic coverage (more for GURPS than other RPGs, even, as the different books describe entirely different settings for the game), and since it's a rather long list, I think having it separate from the main article is appropriate.  Gavin, your comment seems to imply that you think this article was created by SJG themselves to sell books, which (as Goochelaar said) doesn't make sense for a list that includes out-of-print items.  Even if they were all in print, though, there's no reason we shouldn't cover a notable subject simply because the objects in question are things one can buy, as long as the article isn't written in a promotional style (which this one isn't). Pinball22 14:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I cannot prove the publisher created these articles himself, but the list and the articles include an extensive web of links to the publisher, the publisher's website and cross referencing with related GURPS products. This indicates that the list was created as part of a larger promotional campaign in contravention of WP:SPAM. More damingly, note that some books listed have yet to be published; this suggests either a fan has inside knowledge or this list is being run like a product catalogue, which Wikipedia is not. --Gavin Collins 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just looked up some of the things marked as forthcoming, and they're mentioned on the website, and thus don't require any inside information.  None of it looks to me to be written in a particularly catalog-ish style, and I think links to the publisher's website, since it has lots of information about the books, are logical things to include in the articles.  Basically, while I have no proof that no one from SJG has worked on this article, I can't see anything about it that looks different from what I would expect of an article written by a neutral party, and therefore it doesn't matter whether they did or not. Pinball22 19:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "Created as part of a larger promotional campaign..."??? It's much more likely a result of (multiple) fans of GURPS and/or people involved in WikiProject Role-playing games (that is, after all, one of the members' goals, i.e. collecting and organizing information on role-playing games).  Please assume good faith.  --Craw-daddy | T | 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Gavin, perhaps you are not aware of the large body of fans and players of GURPS and its settings and extensions. There are lots of people who writes and publishes on the web self-produced settings, adventures, handbooks. In a way, they freely advertise for SJG. There is a following somewhat similar to the one supporting Linux, with people happy to contribute material freely (see |the unofficial pages indexed at the official website, just to begin). The publisher itself has no need, so to say, to spam anything. --Goochelaar 21:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You are right, I am not aware of any fanbase, in fact there is just no evidence at all to suggest this list of books has any following, like numbers sold or readership numbers. However, if Talk:List of GURPS books is anything to go by, there is evidence that this list generates little to no interest, other than as a product catalogue for keeping tabs on product numbers. --Gavin Collins 22:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly wondering why anybody would care about the fanbase over the books, but if you're curious, you can find some numbers. Me, I don't see what's the bother, it's not like I'm going to buy out Steve Jackson Games.   FrozenPurpleCube 23:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point you're trying to make here, Gavin, with your latest comment? Activity (or lack of) on an article's talk page is irrelevant to the notability of GURPS (which I think is pretty clearly established).  GURPS is notable, and this list is a legitimate content fork of a notable subject.  This list could be included in the main GURPS article, but is long and, hence, is suitable for a content fork.  I've had this argument (and am apparently still having it) over another list.  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)  Note: Having written this and reread other comments here again, this is essentially the same argument that FrozenPurpleCube put forth in his Keep remark below.  --Craw-daddy | T | 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm confused by the "keeping tabs on product numbers" bit... are we looking at the same list? The product numbers aren't even on it.  Pinball22 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Gosh, yes, and the General Motors article has an extensive web of links, not only to the manufacturer's website, but to its Canadian operation, to its European operation, to its official blogs, and several other related links, including to related product lines. Do you suggest that that must be some corporate plot as well?  On the contrary, this falls into the very definition of acceptable external links, and it would be strange if the article on any entity or product failed to include a link to its official website.  The implication that a practice that Wikipedia guidelines encourage is not only sinister but a violation is staggering.    RGTraynor  21:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Wow. That's quite an accusation.  Why don't we ask the creator of the article?  I notice that he hasn't been informed of this AfD. -Chunky Rice 21:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, that would be User:RJHall, who doesn't seem to obviously be affiliated with SJG, but is an active user whose pattern of edits indicate a wide variety of interests including other RPGs. I sincerely doubt he's a shill.  And of course, if anybody is curious, they can inquire with Steve Jackson games themselves.   has all sorts of links.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Let's see...is GURPS notable? Yes.  It's won several awards, in its own right and for individual books published as part of the system.    The company has also been the subject of several news articles as well.  A directory to the publications by system here is no different than listing books by author List of works by Joseph PriestleyList of works by Piers AnthonySeries of books by Isaac AsimovList of works by Kurt VonnegutList of works by Neil Gaiman or by franchise List of Star Wars books List of Oz booksList of Star Trek novels.  This is no different from them, and in no way constitutes a sales catalog of any type.  Unless there's direct links to Warehouse 23 I don't know about.  In which case, those should be removed. Whether or not any of the books should have their own article is another question for another time.  Of course, if you don't believe GURPS itself is notable, feel free to nominate it for deletion.  And if you don't believe Lists of Works merit articles, then I suggest you see about getting consensus for the removal of Manual of Style (lists of works).  If you wish to have additional content added, feel free, there's plenty that could be said, like awards won, for example.  FrozenPurpleCube 15:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well put. Rray 19:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - This article, although about a series I haven't heard of, appears to be notable. On the other hand, the article also appears to be filled with a lot of listcruft.  I think the article should be kept, but perhaps a little bit more information to balance out all the links. TheInfinityZero 15:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - clearly not spam. It may be approipriate to reduce some of the content and merge with a parent article. Artw 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and replace with categories for the notable books.  I fail to see the need to list every book published about a topic.   Imagine how long "List of Chess books" would be.  We're not a book index  Corpx 18:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe your position reflects an ignorance of the basic concepts here. Chess is a game for which a wide variety of publishers have produced books.  Why?  Because anybody who wants to can make a book about Chess. GURPS is a trademarked roleplaying game, as such, there is a far more limited publication potential.  Leaving aside the question of whether or not it would be legal to produce compatible books, only SJG can license the use of the trademark, and as far as it goes, the number issues you raise are hypothetical, not actual.  You might as well argue List of space travelers by name should be deleted because it's an unbounded list.  That said, there is an article that covers one aspect of Chess and the books written for it.  Chess endgame literature.  FrozenPurpleCube 19:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So, these are essentially game guides? I think that strengthens my point even more Corpx 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, GURPS is a pen-and-paper RPG, so they're the rules/settings/suggestions for play. Pinball22 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have to ask, are you familiar with this subject at all? Because your statements are so off-base that I'm baffled that you'd bring them up.  Are you claiming this article is a guide to the game?  No, it is not.  Nor is GURPS. Are you equating these books with something like the Official Final Fantasy VII Strategy Guide?  Again, they are not, but to show that would probably best be done by your own eyes.  This is more like List of Final Fantasy media actually.  But really, I wonder exactly what perspective you have on this subject.  It doesn't seem to be informed at all.  Your point (which fails to note the existing lists of books by some criteria that have been linked above) is rather weakened when it doesn't seem to be cognizant of the actual situation.  FrozenPurpleCube 22:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Isnt that the whole point of AFDs? So that non-experts can judge inclusion based on notability guidelines?    Most of these books dont have notability on their own and I still fail to see why should be indexing them.   Corpx 23:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's never been a requirement of lists that the individual members of that list satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria, only that the subject as a whole does. -Chunky Rice 23:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the purpose of an AFD is to determine consensus for inclusion, which has no direct relation to experts or notability. It certainly behooves anybody who comments in an AFD to at least have a basic comprehension of the subject and of existing Wikipedia articles, but neither expertise nor non-expertise is determinative.  And the purpose of indexing them is the same reason we include lists of books by an author, or in a series.  Including the information provides Wikipedia readers with desirable information about the subject.  In a sense, it's really no different than listing say, the songs on a CD by a major artist.  Or films in a movie series.  Or songs on a movie soundtrack. Not including the information would leave a large hole in the coverage.  FrozenPurpleCube 02:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Another bizarre nomination for deletion that does nothing to improve the Wikipedia. This isn't spam or advertising and shouldn't be deleted as such. Rray 19:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of the list (GURPS) is clearly notable, as others have noted. The assertion that this list constitutes spam is also unfounded.  There's nothing remotely spammy about the content of the list.  -Chunky Rice 20:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep: Oh come now, this is absurd. A list is, well, a list.  Many lists on Wikipedia run into the thousands, and contain no more information than a bare, well, listing of the pertinent type.  If there's a WP:SPAM allegation, I'd be happy for the nom to supply evidence to that effect other than the absurd logic of "Commercial company" + "List of its products" = "Blatant advertising."    RGTraynor  21:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as there are numerous redlinks so turning it into a category is not an equal option, informationcontentwise. Even as a list, this article serves to illustrate the breadth of GURPSdom. --Agamemnon2 21:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. A very suitable list for people who are interested in GURPS.  RandomCritic 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and snowball this. GURPS is highly notable, the supplements deserve mention. --UsaSatsui 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as per FrozenPurpleCube, others. Also, nominator's assumption that his other Afd nomnations for Gurps books will all go through leaves a rather bad taste in the mouth. Edward321 01:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; Notable game system with widely-published supplements. The list provides organizational elements that would likely be lost with a category and includes many publications that do not yet have articles. It provides a comprehensive listing for people (like me) who enjoy GURPS. &mdash; RJH (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. GURPS is notable, and a list of books in GURPS (a bounded set) is an appropriate addition.  However, as the list of books for GURPS is very large, it's better to have in a separate article. Also, a general reminder, please remember to assume good faith.  It's really frustrating to have one's good faith work labelled as spam.  — Alan De Smet | Talk 19:09, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep having a list article like this is a good way to keep Wikipedia clear of content-free per-book gamecruft articles. Percy Snoodle 12:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Shadowrun linked to GURPS Technomancer because it is notable for being very similar to Shadowrun. On that page there was a discussion on whether to delete it and redirect to List of GURPS books.  If you also delete the List of GURPS books, there is nothing left.  So that's two levels of lost information for what?  I for one find RPG information on wikipedia interesting.
 * Keep per basically all of the above. A list of GURPS books is verifiable, notable and a relatively limited set. Does not resemble spam in any way. Chaz Beckett 16:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A game system that's been around for over 20 years and continues to generate interest and content is notable. Mordecai-Mark Mac Low 19:36, 1 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.