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 No Consensus defaulting to keep, some very weak arguments used by some on both sides ('fictional nonsense' or 'useful') which I have largely discounted but there is still no consensus. Davewild (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series[edit]

List of gangs in the Grand Theft Auto series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Completely unsourced outside of in-universe references. Has limited potential for independent 3rd-party sources. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC) 14:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - also a magnet for fair-use image abuse; see recent history. Black Kite 14:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Lack of sources is hardly grounds for deletion. The fact of the matter is is that all of these gangs are deemed characters under WP:FICT, i.e., they are important, integral parts of the storyline that help to advance the plot. This deletion is totally unmerited. Also, concerning the "fair use" issue, this issue is still being discussed and I'm confident this issue can be reasonably resolved. Regardless of the outcome on that matter, I'm sure the GTA task force will do a great deal to mediate the matter according to the resolution in the future. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 14:37, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd just point out that lack of reliable sources absolutely IS reason for deletion (recent example). Black Kite 14:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant lack of sources on the page, not necessarily in existence, which seemed to be the case in your cited example. This isn't mere original research. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 20:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, 34 of the 38 references on the page are directly from the game and thus primary sources, one is from RockStar (and is thus also primary), one is a fansite, and another doesn't work for me (this might be temporary). The remaining one (GameSpot) is quite good - more like that would be needed to source the article properly. Black Kite 22:40, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I second Klptyzm. This page is about characters in the game and important ones at that. Hazillow (talk) 14:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep well-written article, prevents main GTA articles from becoming unnecessarily bloated. xenocidic (talk) 15:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fictional nonsense. Could have a paragraph or two on the game's article page. Dan Beale-Cocks 15:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article is legitimate and does serve it's purpose. --Belinrahs (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Real world comparisons with real life gangs have been made on a consistent basis in reliable sources and provide for an interesting subject. User:Krator (t c) 18:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If these real world comparisons were quoted in the article there'd be no need for this AfD. Black Kite 22:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• AFDs are about the suitability of the subject for inclusion in Wikipedia, not about judging quality. User:Krator (t c) 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article is useful Ctjf83^talk 08:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. See this as a list of important characters from a very well-known franchise. So far, there aren't that many real world references (the Haitian controversy is there, that's notable enough), but more could be added. 96T (talk) 14:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - "Useful", "well known", "important" are all meaningless without reliable sourcing, and as of now there are 2 legitimate references that help establish notability. This needs a lot more to be retained for merger, let alone keeping it on its own. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't need a source to say the GTA series are well known, it's common knowledge. Furthermore, if you've played the games you'll know that these characters are indeed important. 96T (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTINHERITED Secret ^account 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As said above, fictional nonsense; no need for an entire list article to cover this. ♠TomasBat 19:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. The article is pretty useful. Agtax 01:14, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the two independent sources (gamespot for San Andreas, videogames.yahoo for Vice City) can be cited from the appropriate specific game articles for their particular out-of-universe material. Everything else is a particularly long analysis of fiction, falling under WP:NOT#PLOT and should be removed or transwiki'd. Marasmusine (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this article is deleted, the information on the gangs should at least (perhaps in a trimmed version) be merged into character listings such as List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. Still, I think it's better to keep this article, because many of these gangs appear in more than one game in the series. 96T (talk) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a game guide, none of the keep (and some of the deletes) side has no policy based reason, just because the game series is notable, doesn't mean everything about it is (WP:NOTINHERITED) the keeps are also WP:USEFUL, and doesn't focus on the sources needed to meet WP:FICTION. Secret ^account 23:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As stated above (in my keep argument as a matter of fact), these gangs are deemed characters per WP:FICT. These gangs are elements that advance the plot in their respective games. This is not game guide information; if this is game guide information, then you might as well say plot sections in video game articles are game guide information. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lack of secundary sources is the main concern for WP:FICTION, and that isn't met Secret 00:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless this article tells people how to beat the games in the series, it's not a game guide. The nominator completely forgets all of the reviews of the games that can be cited in this article. --Pixelface (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - First of all, this article is not a game-guide. WP:NOT#GUIDE clearly says "a Wikipedia article should not read like a how-to style manual of instructions, advice (legal, medical, or otherwise) or suggestions, or contain "how-to"s". This article contains nothing of the sort. Poor sourcing is a reason to improve an article, not to delete it. As far as I am aware, no one has so far raised any sort of WP:V concerns there or even placed a tag on the page. Why not try improving the article first, instead of immediately bashing the big red button labled "Delete"?. This discussion is not about notability but instead about secondary sources, which warrants the appropriate tags and not deletion. Give editors a chance to improve the article first, instead of bringing down the gavel before they even know what the problem is. .:Alex:. 16:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I also feel that I should point out that "fictional nonsense" is not a valid argument for deletion. WP:NONSENSE clearly states that "nonsense" constitutes as unintelligible material (i.e., "text or random characters that have no assignable meaning at all" or content that "is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever.") and also mentions that "nonsense" should not be confused with fictional material. If that were so, "fictional nonsense" could constitute as any material based on fictional works. .:Alex:. 17:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The gangs in the GTA series are as fundamental to the games' stories as the individual characters. As mentioned above, the flaws of this article are reason for improvement, not deletion. Dbam ^Talk/_{Contributions} 20:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. No notability outside of the GTA series itself. As much as GTA fans may like this information and find it useful, WP is not a game guide or a fan fiction site. Articles need to be supported by reliable research from independent third party resources, and those resources have to be notable. Anything else is a violation of WP:OR. This article will likely violate WP:SYN. 65.93.222.5 (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has nothing to do with game guides or fan fiction. There are already third party references (and primary source references, which are also allowed) in the article. 96T (talk) 18:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I knew someone was going to come along and completely ignore what I had said... It's not a game guide, as already pointed out numerous times for a variety of reasons. Also, primary Sources are acceptable and are not necessarily original research. Yes the article most definitely needs more third party sources, but that does not mean the primary sources are not valid as well. .:Alex:. 18:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Also (as stated above as a matter of fact), these gangs are important elements in the game and help advance the plot. Under WP:FICT, these gangs are deemed characters. Information about the gangs' relevance in the storyline is not game guide information. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. Too many mentions have been made regarding the lack of notability this subject matter has outside of the GTA universe. If the game itself is notable, its constitutive components certainly are, since they themselves are what foster such notability in our collective consciousness. The allusions and similarities to real-life locations, situations, and entities are what constitute the impact of the GTA series on our culture. The gangs portrayed in the series are just as notable as any of the other plot devices employed throughout. But to attempt to include every last notable aspect of a phenomenon like the GTA series in the main article(s) would be ludicrous. Articles such as this one can alleviate such a burden, and can delineate impactful components of a complex network of notability. As long as the editors of this article are allowed time and space to source claims, it should be kept. Eganio^Talk 03:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, too long to merge into Grand Theft Auto (series). The games are the primary sources. As a sub-article, it doesn't have to establish independent notability. And I'm sure one could find coverage of the gangs in reviews at review aggregators. IGN has an article on the gangs of GTA3. --Pixelface (talk) 08:47, 2 March 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.