Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTA-SanAndreas.com

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 of the debate was no consensus, defaulting to keep. Ichiro 02:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GTA-SanAndreas.com

Delete, non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia. Also, much of the information is completely worthless. Images have no captions and make it appear as though the encyclopedia article is becoming part of their webpage! Although not a reson in itself for deletion, no other WP articles link to it (except its sister article) and through Google, only 4 other sites link to this website. ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Though the page has been changed to have captions for its images, the images themselves do not add to the article.--ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 01:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • I've replaced the logo pictures with screenshots from the website, to give a bit more information about the site. GoldenTie 11:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GTAGuides.com —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 04:26Z

• Keep. The idea that this article is 'non-noteable and not fit for an encyclopedia' is a matter of point of view. As far as the members of the forum the article is about are concerned it is extremely notable. We, as a whole, have worked to keep the entry in the correct writing style and with links to other Wikipedia article as needed. Also out of the three images in the article the one of Jack Thompson does in fact contain a caption, and the other two are obviously self-explanatory. The first image is the main image of the website and the second is the main image of the forum. As for the 'no other WP articles link to it' issue, the article has only been up and running for 2 days now, so that's not exactly very much time to be linked to by other articles. However we are listed in the Bulletin board systems, Virtual communities, & Internet forums categories. This article is just as useful as others in those categories. –OptimumPx of GTA-SanAndreas.com 10:38 PM (EST), 12 January 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.153.232.121 (talk • contribs) 04:41, 13 January 2006 (UTC).

• Delete wikispam--nixie 04:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Alexa rank 50k [1], 40k google hits [2] -- Astrokey44|talk 05:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, important site for extremely notable game. Kappa 06:08, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Well, not really important but passes notability tests and I've heard of it. WhiteNight ^{T | @ | C} 06:12, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is not spam at all! A huge notable site and forum. -cali —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.169.187.94 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC).
• Weak delete. It's a notable game but I'm not convinced that the site is notable. Stifle 08:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. High enough Alexa for me, for now. Remember, if wikipedia succeeds, we are still in its infancy. Maybe this should later be merged or chucked, but its good enough for now. Youngamerican 13:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, it's ranked #1 of the gta-sanandreas sites, so it deserves to have it's own wikipedia page. User:Gerard 16:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.100.142.55 (talk • contribs).
• Keep. Do a proper [search] and you'll see at minimum 237 sites link to it - Nanook 16:05, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Gregbains (talk • contribs) has only contributed to the GTA pages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 20:31Z
• Keep because no strong reason against. As Greg says, if you search Google properly, there's at least 237 links to it. It's the biggest GTA fansite on the internet, according to Alexa, and will soon be merged into GTAGuides.com. It's a notable site with more than 25,000 members. It's listed at the back of the San Andreas game manual as one of the 'official' fansites, has been up for coming up to three years, is active every day and is linked to in the San Andreas article. The article has only been up a couple of days and we've strived to maintain Wikipedia standards. The images are relevant and more information will follow. Compare this article to the one for Something Awful: we've tried to split the information up into history, forums and features (and 'fads') of the site, mirroring the accepted style as seen in SA.GoldenTie 17:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • GoldenTie (talk • contribs) has only contributed to the GTA pages. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-13 20:31Z
  • Incorrect: I've made contributions to the talk pages of other articles on things from schools to classic literature prior to registering with Wikipedia. I normally stay in the discussion pages and have made minor editing corrections to other pages also. Please do not attempt to blacken the article or cloud the water by enforcing opinions on the authors of the article. GoldenTie 22:16, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Horribly over the top article full of loaded language ("insiders claim"), advertising spin, self-aggrandisement and such nonsense. I've deleted one small paragraph and don't have time to do the rest now. If it's kept, would a 'keep' voter please tidy it up. --kingboyk 21:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --kingboyk 21:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. While no one's arguing the game's notability, the site itself deserves nothing more than POSSIBLY a link on the parent page. --InShaneee 22:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • This page aims to give information about the website to viewers who may be interested in it, much like the Something Awful article. The site is notable (see the rankings) and the article gives interesting information about the site and its stature. GoldenTie 22:22, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Please do not vote more than once. --InShaneee 22:27, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
      • You're right: my bad. I was merely entering rebuttal. But that is not the point. GoldenTie 22:29, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Webcruft (aka non-notable advertising spam for a website not of general interest nor of encyclopedic interest). Wikipedia is NOT dmoz. Plus apparent meatpuppets here. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 22:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Rebuttle: The website is primarily GTA-driven in content, but on a community scale has become more generalised. Thus it may well be of general interest and it is a descriptive and informative article (of a large and popular website): what Wikipedia is all about. GoldenTie 23:03, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment You seem to have somewhat mistaken what Wikipedia is all about. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 23:06, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Rebuttle: By all means correct me: I was under the impression that Wikipedia is a resource for information about an entity. This article aims to give a description of the site in question and gives background information which may be of interest to other potential website administrators, as well as users interested in the site. It is unlikely that the article would be accessed through any other reason than in a quest for information, and therefore is hardly advertising. On the contrary, it often shows the problems that sites go through - GoldenTie 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

However, you continue to miss the point that wikipedia is not a resource for information about just anything and everything. We have some rather strict guidelines on what merits inclusion and what doesn't. --InShaneee 03:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. -- JJay 06:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• I've taken the liberty of massively ripping out all the stupid forumvanity cruft. Nobody cares who had a forumwar with whom. The one thing kept is the conflict with notable "moral crusader" Jack Thompson. All the rest is just pointless blather. But keep as a generally notable site. If the cruft comes back, my vote may change. Seriously, people. NOBODY OUTSIDE YOUR FORUM CARES that some guy was a fascist and got banned or that some admin posted tubgirl and banned himself. Y'all may think it's the coolest thing since sliced bread but it's just breathless forumdrama that in a year or two nobody will remember. FCYTravis 11:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Perhaps a section on Forum Subculture might be an appropriate place to put recurring themes within the forum - e.g. the Redism movement. Also, I would have thought that a section on difficulties within the community may also be of use to future potential webmasters. GoldenTie 11:50, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • No, it's just plain not interesting to people that people got pissed off at each other and banninated each other. There's nothing unique or interesting about it to anyone outside your forum. I would suggest creating your own wiki if you want to create a complete and detailed history of every single thing that ever happened on your forum. The "Redism controversy" is... two groups of people getting pissed off at each other on a forum. They had no impact on the broader world and they hold no interest to anyone outside your community. It's not going to help webmasters because it happens on every single forum, everywhere. Don't take this the wrong way, I'm sure it's of amazing import to you and the people on the forum... but to everyone else, it's just more forumdrama that happens on every single forum ever opened. You could write Ph.D dissertations on the forumdrama at some places I participate in, but it really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. What would be FAR more interesting and important to people on Wikipedia is a larger section on what GTA-SanAndreas.com offers to people who play the game - what sort of help can they get, what resources are offered, walkthroughs, whatnot. Every Web site with a forum has forumdrama, that's not unique. GTA-SanAndreas.com appears to offer a lot of great GTA:SA resources, and that is probably more unique, not to mention more interesting to anyone who's never visited your forums. Remember, Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. FCYTravis 18:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Thanks for the advice on what to include on the article: it's much more helpful to me and to those involved in the article to have suggestions as to what to add, as opposed to a nomination for deletion per se. I'll put something up! GoldenTie 18:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
        • Don't take it too personally - one of the things that's broken on Wikipedia is the "cleanup" system. The quickest way to get attention for an article that is questionable in terms of content is... to put it up for deletion and get a consensus from a lot of people looking at the article. It's not elegant and it's way too confrontational but there you have it, until we come up with a better way of doing it. FCYTravis 19:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
          • True enough: I've put a brief paragraph on what the site contains. I'd like to expand it, but I'm not sure where the line is drawn between explaining the site's content, and just recreating the site navigation menu. GoldenTie 19:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable. Tim Pierce 00:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - non-notable indeed, -MegamanZero|Talk 01:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Non-notability is not an official policy for deletion of Wikipedia articles. 80.249.48.45 13:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
    • But websites can be deleted for being non-noteable. See Criteria_for_web_content. Unless you believe that it meets the mentioned criteria, the site's non-notability is reason for deletion. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable Incognito 06:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

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.