Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Multi Theft Auto

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. - Bobet 09:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Multi Theft Auto

Non-notable game modification. -- Merope ^Talk 19:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The team is already in the process of editing the page and some people went a bit to far. We are trying to update it and expand it with external references. MTA has become one of the more known modification in the gaming industry, IGN even mentioned us in one of it's first articles about GTA:SA and Gamespy had the following line in it's article about Saints Row "we saw was the concept of what would be known as another GTA clone extended to its next logical point on the 360: cloning Multi Theft Auto. " . If this article is up for deletion then i can also recommend San Andreas Multiplayer which is similar in content and handles about a similar subject.
• Keep I'm entirely biased, but I consider it notable in that I've met many people who play the game in "Real Life". I agree with the statements made in the previous unsigned comment RE magazine and website articles. EAi 19:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• I'll withdraw the nom if these citations are worked in - they clearly establish notability. -- Merope ^Talk 20:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

• Well, we will have a look at how we will do that, i've spend the past hour collecting various bits i remembered and combined them on our own wiki : http://www.mtavc.com/docu/index.php?title=Press_Coverage . I'll see tomorow where we can go from here. btw the unsigned comment was mine, never was a big editor on wikipedia so this is all fairly new to me -- Blokker 1999

• I have just edited the page to include our top moments in press coverage. Blokker 1999 16:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merope, are you happy with this now? Can this AfD be closed? EAi 23:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The article is being changed, and currently contains at least a lot more references.
• Weak keep based solely on the references added; thanks, Blokker. Frankly, gaming mags and websites are pretty low on the reliable-sources scale; comments like the one cited above don't meet the "non-trivial" standard, so you pretty much need feature articles to justify inclusion. For comparison, in boardgaming where I'm more active than computer gaming, just because the latest expansion to Settlers of Catan gets talked about on BoardGameGeek, that doesn't mean I'll put an article in WP. And no, this isn't cut-and-dried enough to justify a "speedy keep" closure. Barno 21:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• It's not that we just have been featured on some forums. We have a couple of articles in the written press that take more then 1 page, the major gaming sites (IGN and GameSpy) compared games like True Crime and Saints Row with MTA. Fileplanet has placed us on it's frontpage, for a mod that's rare. And G4TV did a feature about us on TV. We even received an e-mail from Rockstar itself stating that they took an interest and will keep track of our progress. When your project is well known by the biggest editors in the bussines then it's difficult to call something trivial imho. Blokker 1999 04:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep i'm an MTA fan and noticed this under deletion policy. My opinion will be biased, but the 'Press coverage' page features a lot i find - surely magazine articles, frequent mentions on IGN and a full feature interview on TV are highly notable. MTA "is probably the world's first publically known and most successful multiplayer modification for a PC game ever." It is also known as the first ever mod to bring multiplayer to the GTAIII series, which makes it distinct from other multiplayer mods for GTA (which also feature on wikipedia).
  • Also i'd like to add that being on the front of fileplanet is no easy job. A few days ago i saw the demo of Medieval Total War II being featured in the main banner where MTA featured. Today i see a battlefield 2142 demo in the same space. These are both huge commercial files, and the fact that Fileplanet were willing to sacrifice such a space for MTA is definately notable.
• Keep "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The list given above shows multiple sources in print, TV and internet pages. Whilst some sources have an interest in video games, they are independent and have no connection to MTA whatsoever. I think the magazine and G4TV sources could also be described as reliable. They have a large, paying audience and limited time / space, yet they chose to dedicate some time/space to MTA. - JonChappell 22:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep But with restrictions. I'm in favour of keeping this article as I do believe, being popular and one of the first GTA multiplayer modifications, MTA is a notable modification, a similar debate was held for the also notable SA-MP modification and the consensus was keep. However I would recommend that the MTA Team advise their community to not use Wikipedia for flagrant advertising (See Vicer's edits for an example), all contributors to the article should be made aware that citing community centric forums does not constitute as attribution of notability. It should also be made clear that Wikipedia is not the place for flame & troll wars between members of the MTA and SA-MP community, both communities should take action to reduce such behaviour by it's members. To the person above who recommended that San Andreas Multiplayer should also be considered for deletion, as already stated a discussion has already taken place regarding the SA-MP article and that bears no relevance to the MTA article, MTA & SA-MP are two wholly independent modifications and are no more related than CS is to TFC (Half-Life modifications). - Jaqel 22:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• If you did read everything you would have noticed that that was me who posted that. And the reason is simple (even though a discussion has been held in the past). When i did research on why our article was put up for deletion i noticed that to establish notability you have to include indipendent sources, something the sa-mp article does not do even though it was put up for deletion months ago. And while we get nominated over it they only get a warning and probably only after reading what has been said here. Now that looks to me as having two standards. Further more we and SA-MP try to avoid flame wars ourselves. Anyone trying to start one in our forums or IRC sees their post removed or gets warned/kicked/banned from the channel. We have a healthy relation, hell i even warned Luke (one of the SA-MP devs) about the warning on top of their article. Blokker 1999 06:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• The issue under debate here is the MTA article, it has nothing to do with SA-MP. Bringing the SA-MP article into question serves no purpose and contradicts your stance of neutrality between the two communities. What happens on IRC or community forums is of no relevance to Wikipedia, the issue I was referring to in regards to relations between either community and Wikipedia was the issue of vandalism that intermittently happens to both the MTA and SA-MP articles. Also realise, the SA-MP article received a similar nomination and has had a similar discussion under AfD, it was not simply a 'warning', you are not receiving some sort of injustice. - Jaqel 19:53, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep please the game mod is notable article just needs better citation Yuckfoo 20:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep PC Gamer UK did a feature about it. This counts as 'non-trivial coverage whose source is independent...' per WP:SOFTWARE, and the IGN coverage noted above would probably count as well. Cynical 11:14, 19 October 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.