Misplaced Pages

:Articles for deletion/GURPS Technomancer: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:13, 23 August 2007 editGavin.collins (talk | contribs)18,503 edits Propose deletion  Latest revision as of 21:12, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB 
(21 intermediate revisions by 12 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''
<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''redirect''' to ]. This appears to be the outcome acceptable to most participants in this discussion. Later recommendations to keep have not found material other than user-submitted reviews or have not argued why this individual book is ]; bear in mind that notability is not inherited. — ]::''']''' 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
===]=== ===]===
{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}


:{{la|GURPS Technomancer}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude> :{{la|GURPS Technomancer}} – <includeonly>(])</includeonly><noinclude>(])</noinclude>
This article fails to establish the book's ], and serves only a ] advertorial. --] 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC) This article fails to establish the book's ], and serves only a ] advertorial. --] 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' a published book by a major publisher for a notable game system. Concerns about advertorial nature are best suited with cleanup, not deletion. Or consider a '''redirect''' to ]. Even if you argue that not all individual GURPS books are notable, it's hardly unreasonable to say that listing them isn't valid as the RPG system is quite notable. ] 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per ] - in lacking coverage from "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent" ] 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::So how do you feel about a redirect? ] 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Yea, that's fine too. Looks like most of the books with articles in ] fall in this same category ] 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to ] until non-trivial sources can be found to substantiate this article. I'm sure they're out there, but I'm not seeing them. ] 18:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::Well, it probably doesn't help that the book was originally printed in 1998, so existing contemporary reviews in the relevant magazines may not be on the Internet very much. ] 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::: Don't get me wrong, I believe this subject is notable, but that doesn't excuse us from keeping with our verifiability standards. Redirects make good placeholders until said sources turn up. ] 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Indeed, I agree with you, and I'm willing to go with a redirect pending further improvement. ] 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comment''' This book must have been reviewed in hobby publications at the time of printing, given the notability of the publisher and parent RPG, but I can't find anything online. Until someone can locate them and use them to support an independent article, a redirect seems acceptable. -] 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per FrozenPurpleCube and per at least some reviews (in spite of it not being very recent) at ] website: , , , , . ] 11:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
:*They look like user submitted reviews ] 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to ] - not notable per ] but worth a mention there. ] 15:35, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' I'm turning into a parrot:- GURPs is a significant RPG system and its world books a great gaming resources.] 19:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Redirect''' to ] is my opinion, too - there are ''lots'' of GURPS books, many of which are only interesting to a handful of hard-core gamers - and Technomancer is one of them. ] 16:05, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' per FrozenPurpleCube couldnt be better put --<span style="font-family:Comic Sans MS;">''']''' ¤ ''']'''</span> 16:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>

Latest revision as of 21:12, 6 February 2023

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 redirect to list of GURPS books. This appears to be the outcome acceptable to most participants in this discussion. Later recommendations to keep have not found material other than user-submitted reviews or have not argued why this individual book is notable; bear in mind that notability is not inherited. — TKD::Talk 17:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS Technomancer

GURPS Technomancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article fails to establish the book's Notability, and serves only a spammy advertorial. --Gavin Collins 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep a published book by a major publisher for a notable game system. Concerns about advertorial nature are best suited with cleanup, not deletion. Or consider a redirect to List of GURPS books. Even if you argue that not all individual GURPS books are notable, it's hardly unreasonable to say that listing them isn't valid as the RPG system is quite notable. FrozenPurpleCube 16:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:BK - in lacking coverage from "multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent" Corpx 18:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
So how do you feel about a redirect? FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Yea, that's fine too. Looks like most of the books with articles in List of GURPS Books fall in this same category Corpx 20:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, it probably doesn't help that the book was originally printed in 1998, so existing contemporary reviews in the relevant magazines may not be on the Internet very much. FrozenPurpleCube 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't get me wrong, I believe this subject is notable, but that doesn't excuse us from keeping with our verifiability standards. Redirects make good placeholders until said sources turn up. Burntsauce 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I agree with you, and I'm willing to go with a redirect pending further improvement. FrozenPurpleCube 18:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment This book must have been reviewed in hobby publications at the time of printing, given the notability of the publisher and parent RPG, but I can't find anything online. Until someone can locate them and use them to support an independent article, a redirect seems acceptable. -Chunky Rice 21:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per FrozenPurpleCube and per at least some reviews (in spite of it not being very recent) at RPGnet website: , , , , . Goochelaar 11:07, 24 August 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.