Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GNS Theory

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/No consensus for deletion--JForget 23:38, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GNS Theory

Original research. A psychological theory relating to role-playing games, where all the links and sources effectively point to the original author again. Wikipedia is not the place to post your novel essays. >Radiant< 15:04, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment This is not a novel essay, it is a theory of game design. Edward321 00:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak Delete This article appears to be closely related to this. Maybe a merger or redirect is in order. I cannot find any reliable sources that deal with this topic. Of the sources listed on the page, 5 link to one website, hardly an assertion of notability. That being said, the article is over four years old and has been edited quite heavily by numerous editors. The article originally started out as a redirect to Libre Mo'Ron, which has since been deleted. I think this article boils down to one man's theory of RPGs. Without other references, this should be deleted or merged. --Cyrus Andiron 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge to Ron Edwards. The model has received critical attention e.g. but there may not be enough material for a balanced article (and it's unclear whether any of the papers citing it have been published in peer-reviewed journals). --Dhartung | Talk 16:39, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, the critical attention Dhartung found is pretty minimal, and I can't quite figure out what, Dissecting larp is, oh wait! there's a wikipedia article on it, sort of at Knutepunkt about "A live role playing avant-garde movement". If this article gets merged into Ron Edwards then The Big Model ought to be merged in there too (and maybe Trollbabe while we're at it). The Big Model is just as bereft of reliable sources as this article is. The Threefold Model is also totally unsupported by reliable references. At first glance, Role-playing game theory has some sources, and is the logical home for GNS Theory, The Big Model and Threefold Model, but it's unclear whether any of the reliable sources there support any of these articles. In summary GNS Theory, The Big Model and Threefold Model are all role playing cruft, unsupported by reliable sources, and of no demonstrated encyclopedic value. As psychological theories they fail WP:FRINGE. Pete.Hurd 14:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this isn't original research, ominator is misled. More refs would be a good idea, though, I agree. Percy Snoodle —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 08:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep this is not an original research. It a significant step in the field of RPG theory. I won't agree to merge it with 'role-playing game theory neither. Maybe we should consider adding references. --Arnauld (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep or merge (not particular which, but the info is useful) Some matters lend themselves to corroboration more readily than others, and one of the useful features of Wikipedia is the ability to find info other sources may not have in a reasonably balanced form. I'm not a gamer, but I am writing on the topic at the moment, and the GNS classification is helpful, whether the theory is valid or not. (I hadn't even heard of it before.) Being able to refer my readers to this article or another with essentially the same information would be very useful. Ansric 19:22, 8 October 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.