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 delete. MBisanz ^talk 23:24, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GTAForums[edit]

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

contested PROD. I don't think this website passes WP:WEB. The only event related to it is a low profile hoax that EA might have been willing to buy them at one moment. -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete complete failure of WP:WEB, WP:N, etc. I would have speedy-deleted it myself, but no harm getting consensus to make it stick better. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The hoax part isn't even sourced reliably. Beyond that I see nothing. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 12:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only notable aspect may be that there was reliable source coverage of the April Fool's joke about the EA takeover - this may be better (if such a page exists) of notable April Fool's jokes in the Video Game industry, but as for the website, definitely not. --MASEM 13:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't delete Doesn't the largest GTA fanbase on the internet deserve an article? GTAForums has been home to many GTA game modifications, many of which are highly useful and well-known to the GTA gaming community. It should, at least, have an article. Radicell (talk) 13:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing "deserves" an article, and there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guideline enshrining GTA fandom as having any importance beyond, well, GTA fandom. There's no reason to presume this website isn't important to that community, but what part of WP:WEB does this site fulfill? Make mine Delete.  RGTraynor  15:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, but GTA itself is a huge milestone in the gaming industry; a forum dedicated to these games should at least be made a stub. There's four sources and could be more by referencing the site itself and sites that provide website information. Don't DeleteRadicell (talk) 08:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody's saying GTA isn't notable, but notability is not inherited. For example, Sonic the Hedgehog is indisputably notable, but that doesn't make fan fiction and fan art about Sonic notable, nor those who create them, related forums, etc. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete — It's not that it doesn't deserve one, it's just that there isn't enough significant coverage from reliable secondary sources to establish notability. MuZemike 14:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable gamer forum. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete gamer forum which doesn't meet WP:WEB -- probably not a speedy candidate but either way. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 17:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per above. Note: I declined a speedy on grounds of CSD#G11 of this article and tagged it for PROD. I suggest to pseudo-transwiki this to the related Wikia wiki instead. SoWhy 09:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My vote wouldn't really matter anyway, but there is some truth to the delete comments, and I am a moderator on that forum, I am not sure what we have accomplished either! Dunno if that tells something about the forums or me. The only thing somewhat considerable would be SA-MP, which was also deleted thrice for lack of notability. As it is now, GTAForums does not deserve an article. Maybe later. --Svip^pong 01:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for being objective about this. Forum articles on AFD often attract all sorts of bad behaviour, from nonsensical arguments to outright disruption. It's refreshing to see a completely different perspective. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:52, 11 October 2008 (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.