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 and redirect Vice City and Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto), delete the other two. —Darkwind (talk) 06:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vice City[edit]

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been around for several years now, and contains very few realiable sources that don't involve the game itself, manuals, guides etc. Given the length of time that no change has occurred, I don't think there is a chance of the article improving. This isn't the days before game-specific wikis were around, and a transwiki probably isn't worth the bother since the various GTA wikis already have their own articles on this topic. I feel that any information that is worth keeping (if there is anything, that is) would be better merged into other articles.

I am also nominating the following related pages for similar reasons:

--Dorsal Axe 11:00, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Santos, San Andreas (2nd nomination), an Afd-nomination for a related article. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 17:10, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) X201 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All (Replacing Vice City with a redirect to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City) A fictional place has the potential to have a standalone article, but first and foremost that needs to have out-of-universe elements like development and reception. These articles are all strictly in-universe, treating the cities as real-world locations. The content may be appropriate on wikias, but not here. As such, the content should be deleted, and the only one that is a viable search term without disamg is Vice City, which can point back to the game's page. --MASEM (t) 13:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Four None of these articles are notable. Only one secondary source in all four articles, which might suggest notability for the game, but not the fictional city. Do Not Merge At most each of these fictioanl cities deserve one sentence in the game's article, if a WP:RS can be found to support it. Lentower (talk) 15:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Liberty City (x era) can definitely go, as they're superfluous to the main Liberty City article at best. Vice City only appears in the one game at present; so redirect Vice City to Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. This leaves us with Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) to look at. First of all, it IS a perfectly valid redirect, so that option remains in play. I've been looking for some kind of coverage on how the city has evolved across the various games/generations, and am really surprised that none appear to exist. As a result, we're left with a valid redirect target, but nothing else; so redirect Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) to Grand Theft Auto (series), because WP:CHEAP comes into play. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:32, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (well, redirect). WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:TRIVIA, WP:NOTGUIDE and completely fails to not WP:INUNIVERSE. The actual reliable sources that describe these can all fit in the respective parent articles, so a WP:SPLIT isn't warranted either. 12:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC) Since a claim has been made for "significant and enduring cultural influence" of these maps, I am adding to my argument that I cannot locate sources that support this claim or--in fact--enough reliable, independent, in-depth sources focused on the topic (maps, not games) to pass WP:GNG, such as WP:VG/RS. I'm willing to change my stance if such references are presented. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:04, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep all. They contribute to reader understanding of these valuable topics; the settings of the Grand Theft Auto series have a significant and enduring cultural influence, and are likewise inspired by particular culture phenomena. Vice City and Liberty City are each independently notable, with considerable information about each. CaseyPenk (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, they really aren't. Vice City is literally notable for being part of one game, so there's nothing that can't be covered in that article. As for Liberty City, one could, like me, reasonably expect there to be tonnes of sources on the city's development throughout the games - but there really isn't any, and it lacks any kind of independent notability that I could find. Note that San Andreas hasn't had an article, if it ever did, for a fair while now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:06, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) What sources are you basing it on that individual maps of games are of "significant and enduring cultural influence"? A claim like this should be easy to back up with references, but several editors were not able to produce any. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 16:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per CaseyPenk. --Rhain1999 (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are supporting CaseyPenk's rationale, do you have sources to support their claims as well, because existence of such sources and thus such claims has been disputed? — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all and recreate new redirects afterward. They currently contain nothing relevant to a general encyclopedia, and anything that could be added to actually establish notability would likely fit in the main articles. It's not like they couldn't be recreated were they to have too much weight dedicated to their real world aspects in the main article. TTN (talk) 20:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (all , probably, but I don;t know the particulars well enough to judge relative impportance) It is only our overall coverage of a fictional work that needs material on such things as critical reception. When the amount of material is so large for an important work that the material needs split, some of it will be about the work itself only. That seems to be the case here. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true for splits when the material would be suitable for the main article, but here it is predominantly original research and fancruft. The few significant claims and parallels with real-world are speculations unsupported by references. And should they be supported, that's a paragraph or two in the main article. Besides that, I personally don't think this is of any lasting encyclopedic value having received no WP:WAF-compliant reception. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:47, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:17, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Generally speaking, a separate article for a video game setting is acceptable if the article predominantly describes the development and reception of the setting. The contributors to all four articles would do well at an external Grand Theft Auto Wikia, but as it stands not one of these articles has any encyclopedic information. The reader comes to Wikipedia to learn about the formulation of the game world and its influence from its real-life counterpart. Not one of these articles has achieved this in the many years that they've been around. I'm voting delete because almost none of the information can be merged back into the main articles as it's mostly fancruft. I'd encourage the editors to develop information on the "Setting" section of each respective page. If they can flesh that out with development and reception sections, only then would it be acceptable to have a standalone article for each city. CR4ZE (t) 14:16, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into a single article, List of places in the Grand Theft Auto series, like it is done with other fictional places (e.g. List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia). --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all into one as Joshua Issac said. This new article will be a good reason for not creating any more settings related article for GTA. - Jayadevp13 00:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per Joshua Isaac. -- Rhain1999 ^{(talk to me)} 00:46, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- To all three above, no we actually generally don't have articles or lists of fictional places for works/series. The List of places in Narnia is very bad example as it primary-sourced glossary for all purposes (in its present state). A good example article for fictional places is Locations of Half-Life, which I point out that is sourced to secondary places and includes reception information. I don't believe from judging the available sources that this really can be done for the GTA locations. --MASEM (t) 03:07, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Masem; generally, the one article here you could make a case for is Liberty City (Grand Theft Auto) given that it's used in three separate games. The problem however, and the reason it should go, is that there's no adequate sections discussing the development ie the different design objectives for each iteration, and the reception for each. This article has existed for years but has never adequately covered the sections it should. Merging all three articles together would be redundant anyway, because then we bring up the "universes" problem, not to mention the fact that the article would still be filled with excessive cruft. CR4ZE (t) 04:31, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for piling on, but this is pretty much my thoughts as well. Moving unsourced material into a single article will not make it sourced or even notable as a group. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:21, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The material in the articles in question (including the Los Santos one) are sourced. These sources would preserved in the merged list. I have already seen news articles that refer to the reception of cities in the latest Grand Theft Auto game, with coverage being dedicated to in-game photographs taken by players. These sources would make the proposed list similar to the one about Half-Life mentioned above. --Joshua Issac (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Issac: What Wikipedia requires are sources that meet WP:RS, WP:N, WP:V, etc. that are added to an article as references. If you and others would like to prevent these articles from being deleted, please add the sources you know of to the articles. Lentower (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such sources are already there, though they are not so numerous. The Los Santos AfD also has a list of sources that was posted by one of the editors, so it has already been proven that these sources exist, so WP:N is satisfied. I quote from the notability guideline:

...if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.

I can't add references to an article that doesn't exist. If people want to delete, but don't oppose the merge before, then I'll merge everything together and put the references there, and the AfD can be about the resulting page.

--Joshua Issac (talk) 23:08, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) The articles are still there, so you can add Wikipedia quality sources. 2) Doing so is the best way to keep the articles. 3) Half of the articles in this AfD have no sources at al. 4) Only one of the sources in the other two, meet WP:RS, and it establishes notabilty of the game, not of the fictional city. 5) Many sources can not be used to establish notability. The phrase you quoted has to be understood in the context of all of WP:N as well as the other Wikipedia core principles, policies, and guidelines. Lentower (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the articles is unsourced. I have not read all of the third-party sources, but the one I did look at, the New York Times article, covers the city in detail. Other reliable sources, such as GamesMaster and IGN Entertainment, are also referenced. And contrary to what you said, many sources are used to establish notability; please see WP:GNG to read more about this. The clause that I quoted does not lose any meaning when understood in the context of other policies and guidelines; if you think that it means something different to what it says, then please elaborate. --Joshua Issac (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Grand Theft Auto (series), per WP:GNG, WP:OR, unless indepedent reliable sources can be identified. -- Trevj (talk) 11:30, 1 October 2013 (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.