Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Los Santos, San Andreas (2nd nomination)

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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Los Santos, San Andreas

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

Article about a fictional city in a computer game. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_City for an AfD for four other articles about fictional cities in the same game (GTA). Articles of this kind would be appropriate on a fan-Wiki, but not here. A previous AfD resulted in a redirect to San_Andreas (Grand Theft Auto)#Los_Santos, but the article has been recreated. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 08:47, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of places in the Grand Theft Auto series with all the other cities. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:21, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Changing to keep, as the number and quality of reliable sources focusing on the city that are now in the article establishes notability per the general notability guideline to warrant an independent article. --Joshua Issac (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim that we should delete this simply because it's related to a computer game is absurd. GTA5 had a budget of $265M — which is more than most major movies — and so clearly a lot of artistic work went into it. It has been receiving massive coverage in mainstream media such as the article I was reading, just this morning, about photography within this virtual city — Gamers group together to take stunning images in Grand Theft Auto V. The nomination seems to be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to WP:CENSOR and WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to GTA V. ~~Delete~~ ~~with the same rationale as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Vice_City~~ - the actual reliable sources that describe these game worlds can all fit in the respective parent articles, so a WP:SPLIT isn't warranted; at best merge the few reliable sources into the parent articles. ~~This is gamecruft that parent article don't want and~~ proper writing about fiction wouldn't need a whole article for each zone split from the game. News hype of screenshots is not in-depth reception required for independently notable articles. I would support a list of GTA places if it is sourced and written from real-world encyclopedic perspective. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to merge in light of quality sources now added that support material beyond original research. Only a couple sources are focused on the location itself though, not something that would pass independent notability with WP:GNG in-depth mark. They mostly talk about the game and game primarily, with the map being an additional subject and news headline. So this still does not warrant a WP:SPLIT from the game article, as all this material can be covered there. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:09, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not achieved by deletion - see WP:MAD. Mainstream news coverage demonstrates independent external interest in the topic. Internal cries of "gamecruft" are just personal opinions contrary to WP:NPOV. Warden (talk) 12:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "merge and delete", I said "delete or at best merge". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 12:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HELLKNOWZ, when Vice City was being considered for deletion, it was being considered for deletion because it didn’t have any real life information linked to the city such as 'reception' towards the city. The Los Santos page however has how people responded towards the city and it should be kept and not deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.160.15.99 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge per prior AFD. BOZ (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Prior AfD was redirected, which is neither "keep" nor "merge". — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:47, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep No, I would not have not created the article yet if this was my call, but it is a bit early in the news cycle on the release of GTAV to know if there's potentially more to the fictional city than I've seen from the other games that falls outside the type easter eggs/interesting landmarks that these fictional cities certainly have. While I've yet to play the game there's definitely some sourcing that suggests possible notability of the setting that is more than gamecruft. I would recommended keeping this but to review the article and state of the sources within a few months (after enough time for sources to settle down) to determine if there's really anything notable about the city (per the nom's aforementioned AFDs for other GTA settings). If anything, a merge/redirect (without deletion) is reasonable. --MASEM (t) 18:29, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The city appears to be notable by itself, as an object of commentary and discussion. The New Yorker ran an entire piece just about the city. HuffPo also discusses the city, Slate discusses life in the city, as does The Independent as I'm sure others do as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the parent article. While there may be enough sources to "establish" notability for the topic, it should be placed into the main article until is reasonable to split it out should it take up too much space. Allowing it to stay in its current state is just going to attract listcruft in various forms, so having a full-fledged article ready to go in the case a split becomes warranted would keep that from happening. TTN (talk) 13:42, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no single parent article. There are already over 50 articles in this family. Some of these such as Grand Theft Auto (series) are large already and so merger would be contrary to WP:SIZE. Warden (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The main redirect can be to Grand Theft Auto (series)#Setting, and the relevant info can be kept in GTA5 unless it needs to be split. TTN (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page is 96K which is too big. It would therefore be wrong to merge more content into a page which "probably needs splitting". Warden (talk) 15:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just said that the redirect will point there, and that the information will stay in GTA5 where it currently fits. If the info in GTA5 is too heavy for that article, then an article should be created. TTN (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We already have an article — this one. Your proposition is absurd. Warden (talk) 16:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, we have an undeveloped stub with unknown potential that at present would only be copying information from the GTA5 article. Redirecting and properly splitting the article out after it has proven to be too burdensome on the main topic (and only if) is much more proper, as it should have been done in the first place. TTN (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors work top-down. Others work bottom-up. Others work on stitching the pieces together. We already have 50+ articles in the GTA family and the number is bound to grow as the game itself develops - the online version opened just today, I read. AFD has no mandate to direct or disrupt this editorial activity which will only be complete when the whole series is obsolete and consigned to history. That seems to be many years in the future. Warden (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for now. This article is already off to a better start than the other AfD's. I'd give the editors a couple of weeks to expand the article; a Development section has been started and could use Grand Theft Auto V#Setting as a good starting point. If the article can grow this section and a reviews section, and keep the cruft out, there's a chance it could be a decent article. CR4ZE (t) 04:45, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lets face it once a computer game location gets a complete article in the new Yorker its going to be notable. The worryingly long article in eurogamer about people mapping the place is further evidence. Heh this is a location that has appeared in two of the most popular games ever that also appear in the series that is known for people ignoring the missions just to look around. Its notable live with it. Not that you actually have a choice given the lively influence its having on the next generation of architects.Geni (talk) 19:24, 2 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.