Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unofficial 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 of the debate was delete. There were a number of "keep" comments, but it is a general policy to assign a heavier weight to editors who have been around for a while. I'm not discounting the votes of others simply because they are new, but because new editors may not have a grasp on guidelines such as WP:EL and WP:NOT. Joyous! | Talk 01:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of unofficial GURPS books
Recreated after deletion via WP:PROD, so contested prod and not a WP:CSD repost. However, the page should be deleted as a list of external links per WP:NOT a web directory. Kusma (討論) 20:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT, and for being completely unmanageable in terms of core policies. Jkelly 20:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a link suppository repository. -- Kicking222 21:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete If this were a list of articles, it would be different, but I don't think any unofficial GURPS books are notable enough. Ace of Sevens 06:37, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete this page has been around for a long time and only just recently did it suddenly become a problem. It is the Unofficial mirror to the List of official GURPS books page. It is more than just a collection of links. It is a list of Unofficial Netbooks, and as such it is just as valid as the numerous other lists of official books. I willing to do whatever work to the article is needed to bring it into compliance with Wikipedia policy so that it doesn't have to be deleted. Perhaps if someone could suggest what changes I should make... Seanr451 20:54, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete - the purpose of wikipedia is to act as a conduit of information. If it's worth putting in links to published, paid-for books - which wikipedia already does - then it's also worth putting in links to free netbooks and webpages... Hanley Tucks
 * User has only edited this page. Kusma (討論) 22:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom if an exlink can be found for GURPS with the same content. Percy Snoodle 09:35, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP:NOT, useless list of non-notable items, gah. Sandstein 21:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete Clean up instead. Many of these works are longtime mainstays on P2P networks AND as parts of widely-distributed GURPS packages. Many of the works are definitely used in many gaming circles, and there are things in the Netbooks that have, without a doubt, made their way into GURPS 4th. Asdfff 22:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, and as unencyclopedic fan, er, stuff. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, recommend authors convert to an article under a different name about the phenomenon of unofficial GURPS books, which is notable (as GURPS has famously spawned so many high quality unofficial supplements). Such an article could contain an external link to a webiste containing this list.  Let me know on my talk page if you need any more advice about that. &mdash;  Es  tarriol  talk 09:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete - As said before, a list of fan-created books is just as valid information as a list of officially published books. More-so in some cases, as its information that might not be readily available elsewhere in one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FraterNLST (talk • contribs)
 * Comment -- user's second edit. Jkelly 04:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do NOT delete -- Instead, add more information to the page so as to evolve it from a mere link list to an actual document containing information about the various netbooks. Otherwise, devoted fans might just conclude that they have to do one page for each of the netbooks in that way (that is, with a text about the specific netbook and a link), which is not really all that different from one large document containing the info, but not as usable as the current version. (Also note that the current version does indeed already attempt to follow this proposal to some extent and is thus different from the version that was originally deleted.) DrTemp 19:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment -- user's fifth edit. All other edits are to article in question and article's Talk page.  Jkelly 20:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on Comments -- Why are the number of edits or articles contributors have created relevant to the discussion? Is this wikipedia's version of the pissing competition? "I have more edits than you, therefore respect mah authoritah!"? Everyone has to start somewhere, and many useful articles and edits made in wikipedia are the single act of a contributor. Of course, people's opinions being less valued due to their low number of contributions could be a cause of their not making further contributions, thus continuing the tradition of wikipedia's "truth" being determined simply by the most energetic contributors. Hanley Tucks
 * It's a metric that we use as a convenience instead of digging into logs to determine whether the account was created simply to add the impression of broader support from Wikipedia editors than actually exists. Jkelly 01:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So, was it? :-S Furthermore, do you have anything to say about the arguments presented by my fifth edit in English-language wikipedia? DrTemp 08:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is that you, and others above, are arguing along the lines of "This is useful information" and "Better a list than a separate article on each website", neither of which I really dispute. But we have some basic criteria for including material in Wikipedia.  If you follow the link WP:NOT you'll see that a collection of external links is one thing we exclude.  The commentary on the links fails our verifiability policy and our No Original Research policy.  We shouldn't ever be the first place something is published.  I suggest that the best solution here is that this work is moved offsite.  Then, in our article about GURPS, a sentence like "Fans have produced unofficial books" might appear, and use the list as a reference to that statement.  That may be questionable from a reliable sources standpoint, if the list is just on somebody's website, but it is a lot better than Wikipedia editors choosing what fansites to list, writing brand new commentary on those websites, and presenting it as an encyclopedia article.  Jkelly 18:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's delete this article, and then wonder why all those links will be introduced step by step into the main article, or each netbooks gets its own brief page, or countless other things that might be done to avoid repeated deletion. Would that be any better? Remember, Wikipedia is for the readers, not for the editors. DrTemp 20:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Individual articles on these websites would be deleted for failing WP:WEB (or if they don't fail WP:WEB, they should have articles!). I agree with you that we write for our readers, but we write encyclopedic articles that are verifiably not original research for our readers.  If you want to write up a list of GURPS fansites complete with reviews, that's great, but Wikipedia isn't the publisher for that.  Jkelly 21:02, 16 June 2006 (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.