Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series

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.--Wizardman 16:58, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in Grand Theft Auto series

Fails WP:V. Lacking multiple secondary sources. The topic itself is entirely unencyclopedic. If anyone wants to keep this material, it should be on a gaming wiki, not here. --- RockMFR 03:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. --- RockMFR 03:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of this can be sourced through in-game dialogue and other in-game elements and strategy guides (quite possibly Brady's, in particular); the gangs can also be considered, albeit in a somewhat warped sense, major characters through WP:FICT: most of these gangs play major roles through all of the games starting from GTA III. You just can't add them into their respective articles, or any other article, of that matter, due to the large amount of information, which, I will say again, can be sufficiently sourced. I also feel a AfD nomination is way too extreme; I think a simple OR or "unreferenced" tag could have sufficed, in this matter. As for the title, I think we could simply discuss a simple solution for this matter, even though I do feel the title is sufficient: gangs have played a major part in all of the GTA games, from GTA 1 to VCS, so I don't see why a "list of gangs" page is so strange. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 03:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge relevant information (that can be sourced in other ways than by players hearing the information on the game audio or seeing it while playing) on each gang into their respective GTA pages, and delete. There doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic need (that I can think of, anyway) for a centralized list of all gangs in all verstions of the game. Perhaps an article on the importance of gangs in the GTA universe . . . no, that should probably be at a gaming wiki. Carolfrog 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:FICT specifies

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

As User:Klptyzm notes, the gangs are characters of the game and supplement the main articles on Grand Theft Auto. As for WP:V, the content is certainly verifiable, either through game guides (secondary sources) or the game itself (as a primary source--note, however, that primary sources should be utilized with the utmost caution and only to make descriptive claims that do not require specialist knowledge). -- Black Falcon 08:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd hope that someone who has the game guides would use them to source the article properly before this AfD ends. If that happened, I might be willing to change my vote. Carolfrog 09:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Black Falcon. hateless 09:03, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be lacking multiple non-trivial published sources. verification that relies on original research in unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:49, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note the references section at the end of the article. -- Black Falcon 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - These are all self referential from the game. How about some published sources for this article? --Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:FICT.96T 12:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it may need a lot of improvements, but in general, it is a well-written article with significance. I don't see any difference between this and a "more normal" character list like so many games have a seperate page for.DreamingLady 12:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure why people are citing WP:FICT, as the current version of the article completely goes against everything at WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). Is there any way at all this could ever be more than game guide/GameFAQs material? --- RockMFR 16:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I'm not sure why simple tags weren't used, instead of jumping to the conclusion of an AfD. This page hasn't even been given a chance yet. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 21:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:FICT specifies that minor characters in a fictional universe should be included in a "list of characters in ...". The gangs of GTA are such characters. This is not a game guide, which are defined as "instruction books that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games". Does this list make suggestions as to what players should do? Does it give hints or cheatcodes? -- Black Falcon 23:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's some WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT going on here. The Grand Theft Auto games have been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial published works from sources that are reliable and independent of the subject and of each other", the gangs in Grand Theft Auto series have not. Wikipedia is not a game guide and Wikipedia articles are not simply plot summaries. More than a little OR going on here too. -- IslaySolomon | talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A hopeless quagmire of in-universe, speculative, and original research garbage for which no page would benefit from a merge. This has been an endless source of revert warring over whose original research interpretation is better. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ALL of this information can be sourced. Plus, like I've said above, this can be protected by WP:FICT; these gangs can be considered characters. As for the warring, only one, possibly 2, users have been causing this warring. A large amount of discussion has gone on about the warred over issues and all have been resolved, yet this user still will not listen to reason. In the end, this page, if not this information itself, deserves to exist, one way or another. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:05, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if sources and OR are your only real arguments, why wouldn't a "OR" or "unreferenced" tag suffice? I don't think the nominator tried giving this page a chance. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - If all of this information CAN be sourced, please provide the sources. —Carolfrog 05:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The references at the end of the article source the content (the game guides are also listed as references; however, it would be nice to have full references per Template:cite web or Template:cite book rather than just names)--to what degree is another question, but that is a technical editorial issue appropriate for the talk page. I myself had not noticed the references the first time I looked over the article (because it's so long). I hope this helps. Cheers, -- Black Falcon 06:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per IslaySolomon and A Man In Black. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid keep argument. Garrett^Talk 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon me for saying so, but none of the "keep" proponents have suggested WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL as a reason. What they have done is refer to WP:FICT and Wikipedia:Deletion policy. -- Black Falcon 22:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly. Just because we're defending something you don't understand or know anything about doesn't mean we're doing it because we "like it." Not one person yet has said anything along the lines of "it's cool" or "I find it useful." We voted "Keep" because it should exist. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 22:30, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep more info needed however. Davnel03 20:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to some of the keep rationales above, here are a pair of features/articles focusing in-depth on gangs from some of the most reliable sources in gaming: this on the gangs of GTA III from IGN, and this on the gangs of San Andreas from Gamespot (via Yahoo!; I also found the article on MSN and GameSpot itself). While I've done much searching and found few other articles concentrating on the gangs, what I've given above does satisfy the "multiple articles from reliable sources independent of the subject" criterion. Most of the info, as stated by Klptyzm, is easily verifiable. The article certainly is not great, but it is, in my opinion, worthy of existence. -- Kicking222 22:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Klptyzm. (A-Dust 23:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep I agree this is sourceable given the popularity of the GTA series and the number of guides about it. — brighterorange (talk) 02:54, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a game guide. Using this logic, every element of any game with a game guide would be here. Popularity does not trump essential policies. If the only secondary sources for this article are game guides (which merely restate the information found in the primary source), it will never be notable. --- RockMFR 07:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is not a game guide, which is an "instruction book that contain hints or complete solutions to specific video games". This list does not make suggestions as to what players should do. It does not give hints or cheatcodes. This is a "list of minor characters", which is allowed and even required under WP:FICT. -- Black Falcon 07:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Huh? This is not a how-to, which is all that WP:NOT forbids. How could you think that? — brighterorange (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information is very encyclopediac. And the comment about this is not a gaming wiki, is very stupid. Its almost as if the person read the name of the article, and didn't read the article, and maliciously tagged it for deletion. This person should have be penalized so he will discontinue this act. I suggest throwing some sources in there, to provide some back-up. But this should have been expressed to the article writer, instead of maliciously putting the article for deletion. GobtaNIndia 07:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)GobtaNIndia[reply]
Keep, as poor sourcing should be a reason to improve a page, not delete it. Tarc 14:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Does not fail WP:V as game content is inherently verifiable. Entirely appropriate as a list. It is a sub-article of the GTA series and as such, is entirely appropriate and not "unencyclopedic". Article itself is obviously long enough that it was split off from the main article. As for lacking secondary sources, that is only useful in a deletion discussion in establishing notability. Since that is obviously not the case here (as it is a sub-article of a very notable game series), lacking secondary sources only merits "sources needed" tags and not deletion. Shrumster 08:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- If it oasses WP:V where are the multiple published sources for the information? If yioy take it directly from the game its original research and prohibited. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The present focus is emphasizing only gangs that are significant in the development of the games' storyline, and not gameplay-specific content (which are obviously game cruft). I have also asserted that the article's content is supported to an extent under WP:FICT, under the pretext that the gangs constitute as characters, because the character lists are patchy in covering gangs that lack notable figureheads. I have no comment regarding citations. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 15:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ╫[reply]
Comment I was contacted on my talk page, in what seemed to me to be a solicitation or 'canvassing' for !votes. This is not allowed underWP:AFD. Please do not do this. As a result of this, I will not !vote on this AFD. Jerry lavoie 16:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Contact with other editors to notify them of AfDs is permitted per WP:CANVASSING if it's limited in scale, contains a neutral message, and is not targeted toward individuals who have expressed a particular opinion on their user page. This particular instance seems to be limited in scale (see the IP user's edit history) and is relatively neutral (does not call for a specific leaning). In any case, I generally do not see canvassing messages (even if done properly) as productive, as they are essentially unsolicited comments. If there are one or two editors who are deeply involved with an article, it's alright to notify them, but randomly contacting users seems ........ pointless. Just my 0.0151888 Euro cents. -- Black Falcon 18:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do see your point, but in my case I have no edit history on this article or its talk page. I was just an editor who happened to leave an unrelated comment on one of the article editors User talk:Craxy user talk pages, and it seemed to me that the user who was canvassing just used names randomly, as he or she found them (like all editors who left any message on another users talk page) I supposed the reasoning was 'this user talked with someone I agree with, so they might vote my way'. (or the opposite of this logic). I can see this was not very WP:AGF of me, but I honestly could not see why I would have been contacted about this article, as I have not taken any action to demonstrate that I would have any interest in it. Thanks, Jerry lavoie 20:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty obvious. The characters (gangs) clearly count as a major part of a fictional universe, so per WP:FICT I say keep. FYI, I greatly dislike this game series...--Hobit 18:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Information is notable. Captain panda In vino veritas 23:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's all sourced from game dialogue. Superior1 07:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No vote. Generally I dislike this sort of specialized article (i.e. List of X in Game Y), and this one relies very heavily on primary sources, so I don't want to endorse keeping it. That said, it the article itself isn't all that bad, and it seems to have avoided many of the "game-guide" pitfalls that plague other game-specific articles, so I don't think it really needs to be deleted either. I suppose maybe I'd be happier if the title of the article were more inclusive; "list of gangs" sounds very narrow.--Alan Au 18:52, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Black Falcon. Mathmo ^Talk 04:39, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge Too much WP:ILIKEIT in the arguments for Keep for my taste. Notable gangs can be merged into the main article and if they can't then they weren't significant to the plot to begin with. The GTA series specializes in sandbox games but it's not in WP's goals to list all the people/gangs you can interact with while you play. The major gangs can be merged and the minor ones can be deleted. Chevinki 09:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.