Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Theftendo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 00:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unreleased fan-clone of GTA III. Should be deleted as wikipedia is not a crystal ball. -- Koffieyahoo 04:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom. Rangek 04:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SPAM. Michael 06:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete That looks really really really cool, and I will definitely play it when it arrives. However, as a minor fangame which isn't actually even released yet, it doesn't need a Wikipedia article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep Videogame press has been all over this one: Among the 18,800 G-hits and 344 unique hits for "Grand Theftendo", here's a feature from 1UP.com on homemade GTA games, mentioning this one in the first paragraph; here's a mention on Boing Boing that links to an article in Forever Geek (and the same article is linked to by Slashdot); one hit states that the game was mentioned in Edge, but I can't verify this; here's a short mention in Electronic Gaming Monthly. I think there's been enough press (and interest) from reliable gaming sources, in addition to being included in the GTA template and having a "Grand Theftendo" WP article in another language, that the game could have its own article. -- Kicking222 13:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being included in the template means nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, that was, like, my seventh point for why I think the article should be kept. Second, I disagree that it means nothing- it may mean very little, but not nothing. It means that there is a consensus among GTA fans that the topic is important enough to be linked to from every other major GTA-related page. -- Kicking222 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it means someone added it and no one else bothered to delete it. Existence of anything on wikipedia is not considered evidence for notability in itself, because anyone can write anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, it has been in the template since December [1], so in those eight months, any of the dozen-plus editors who have altered the template could have deleted it if they had chosen to do so. But anyway, this is not the point. The mod/game is notable whether it's in the template or not. -- Kicking222 23:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it means someone added it and no one else bothered to delete it. Existence of anything on wikipedia is not considered evidence for notability in itself, because anyone can write anything. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, that was, like, my seventh point for why I think the article should be kept. Second, I disagree that it means nothing- it may mean very little, but not nothing. It means that there is a consensus among GTA fans that the topic is important enough to be linked to from every other major GTA-related page. -- Kicking222 20:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Being included in the template means nothing. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 14:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Recreate the article if/when the game is actually released and has gotten some press coverage. Wp:not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_crystal_ball --Xyzzyplugh 00:26, 9 August 2006 (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.