Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS RebornRebirth

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. Will be kept as a redirect (though not deleted) until reliable sources to notability are produced. CitiCat ^♫ 18:42, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GURPS RebornRebirth

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

This article is long on plot summary and character description which reads like original research, but has no independent sources demonstating notability. --Gavin Collins 10:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of GURPS books. Although your statement about OR once again shows your misunderstanding of the subject material, I do agree with your analysis of notability, and believe a redirect would be best in this circumstance. Turlo Lomon 10:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Have a read of WP:OR and you will note that it states that "original research...in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a "novel narrative". This article is 24-carat OR. --Gavin Collins 10:37, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply I have read that. The article, presumeably, summarises the contents of the book. That is not OR. It just using a primary reference, and as such, does not meet notability. Turlo Lomon 10:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of GURPS books despite inaccurate and likely bad-faith nom. Percy Snoodle 11:19, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to List of GURPS books. Once again, you're misusing WP:OR in stating it as a basis for this nomination. This is not a "novel narrative"... no one made it up to write here, they read the book and summarized the information therein, as is perfectly valid according to WP:OR's section on use of primary sources. Pinball22 15:17, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect as above, indeed. (As a courtesy to somebody for whom English is not the first language: in the phrase "novel narrative" we are not meaning "novel" as a literary form, are we? Do I understand correctly that we are meaning it as an adjective?) --Goochelaar 16:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, in this case we mean "a narrative that has not existed before" not "the narrative of a novel". That's probably not necessarily the clearest wording that could have been chosen. :) Pinball22 16:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! --Goochelaar 21:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect per others...yeah...I still think you're pointing.--UsaSatsui 20:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI guess I'm pointing back.KTo288 22:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question Would you care to explain the reasoning behind your keep? Turlo Lomon 12:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Reply Sure. I'm being quixotic,t he only arguements I have are "I like it" and "It does no harm" which are non-arguments here so have been left out, however this article represents the the time and effort of editors to make, in good faith, a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia, and should be recognised as such and shouldn't be discarded without some recognition and thought. My keep, is therefore made more out of solidarity for all the GURPS articles and for the editors who contributed to this article (and probably won't know about this AfD until they find it gone) then out of any real expectation that it will have any real effect. KTo288 23:38, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Redirect ... AGAIN per above rationales. --Agamemnon2 12:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I am a main contributor of this article. I can show you related books of the GURPS RebornRebirth (ガープスリボーンリバース). See search result of RebornRebirth (リボーンリバース）in Amazon.co.jp. But they are only four books. I'm afraid this article is lack in notability. Plumcherry 16:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What are those four books you link? Game suppliments? Novels? Have any of them won awards in Japan or been covered in Japanese gaming magazines, etc.? How many Japanese RPGs are based on American RPGS? If you can provide this info, it may establish notabilty. Edward321 00:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Three books are novels and one book is a replay (published session log). A few recent Japanese RPGs are based on American RPG systems such as GURPS RebornRebirth, GURPS Yuel (The sequel of GURPS Runal) ,Taitei no Ken RPG based on Basic Role-Playing and several Call of Cthulhu products including Cthulhu to Teikoku (Cthulhu and Empire of Japan) and Hieizan Enjou (Burned Hieizan temples). But these games aren't very popular. Most Japanese gamers prefer to various Japanese original systems or faithful translated games such as Dungeons and Dragons v3.5, Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay and Shadowrun 4th ed. In that sense, GURPS Rebornrebirth is a significant and unique GURPS supplement written in non-English language, but this game is minor and not have much influence in Japan. Plumcherry 14:56, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• Merge while nomination appears not to understand either the subject of the article or the term original research, notability has not been established. There should be no prejudice against article recreation if independant Japanese sources can be found. Edward321 00:58, 21 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.