Talk:GURPS Banestorm

message: OK, this page was made a redirect a couple of years ago and I just undid that.  I understand this is a controversial edit; I also understand a few editors contributed to making this article the way it was and two editors felt the Wiki doesn't deserve this article.
Some background: GURPS is a well-known role playing game.  GURPS is commonly available in any hobby store where you can buy role playing games.  Look at NearbyGamers, it's the fourth most popular RPG out there.
Now, "it's notable" or "it's not notable" is invariably a subjective judgment.  I've seen millions of electrons wasted with people having pointless arguments about whether something is notable here on the Wikipedia.  However, keep in mind:
* GURPS is the fourth-most popular RPG out there
* GURPS is a commercial RPG that has been around for two decades
* GURPS is notable enough to be readily available in gaming stores
I'm no hardcore gamer, but I have bought a few GURPS sourcebooks over the years and have played it a couple of times with a buddy or two.  From where I stand, GURPS is notable enough to warrant having Wikipedia articles for its most notable books, such as Banestorm.
I rest my case.  Please do not make this page a redirect again without discussion here (or take it to VFD if you must)
Samboy (talk) 01:16, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have any verifiable evidence to support you arguements? --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes.  GURPS is the fourth-most popular RPG out there and GURPS is a commercial RPG that has been around for two decades.  As for "GURPS is notable enough to be readily available in gaming stores", I'm out of the US so I can't just go down to a gaming store and take a picture of GURPS on the shelf there.  I'll see if I can dig up something later on today.  Samboy (talk) 12:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To support the "GURPS is available at gaming stores" point above, Hillcity Comics is a brick-and-mortar store that sells GURPS.  Another data point: GURPS has 1,490,000 Google hits (all the hits on the first page refer to the role-playing game)  Samboy (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

text: The only review of GURPS Banestorm I can find is the rpg.net review.  Samboy (talk) 15:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Another thought: Is it possible to take articles like this and put them on the GURPS Wiki?  The GURPS wiki looks pretty neglected right now.  Samboy (talk) 15:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yes, this is notable 

message: Related deletion discussions were in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GURPS_Bestiary and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/GURPS_4e_Basic_Set.  This article never got a VFD, but other GURPS articles did. Samboy (talk) 16:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Monsters Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Uplift (2nd nomination)  Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Runal (2nd nomination) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Bio-Tech Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Infinite Worlds Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GURPS Alternate Earths II (2nd nomination) etc. Samboy (talk) 17:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related deletion discussions 

message: At least not based on the information you've provided.  GURPS is definitely notable.  And if anyone were to try arguing that I'd declare the argument ridiculous.  But the only reasons stated that GURPS Banestorm is notable are covered under wp:NOTINHERITED.  There are notable GURPS supplements (a number of them have Origins Awards in their own right, and there was the entire GURPS Cyberpunk fiasco).  Banestorm?  As far as I can tell doesn't.  Not even notable among GURPS books. Neonchameleon (talk) 13:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oh no it isn't notable