304:
that drags every discussion about forum in the way of deleting them. Let's take one step backwards. We are not talking about weather gtaforum is good or bad, you may have never heard for it, you may not know what it is about, but understanding that this page has enough notable sources is essential. Knowledge (XXG) is very unclear on the subject of forum notability, so I needed to go through various rules to establish the following. First don't assume forum is just a website. Look at forum this way: forum is organization. This organization's residents are called members. This organization's products are called threads, topics, mods, showcases. This is no ordinary organization however. It does have many basic standards as every organization has, but the difference with this one is that we can't separate it from its products. This organization and its products are very compact because they rely on each other - without one, the other wouldn't exist. That's why they are so inseparable. This is what makes internet forum so different. Taking away content of GTAnet from it is like taking all the words from a book.
687:... None of the five sources for this sentence directly discuss the "quality" of the fan made material. In particular, the "quote" for Digital Trends is misleading. Digital Trends does not call the quality of the material "dedicated", it simply says "A dedicated group of fans" made the map. At best, these sources might lead to notability of the particular artists and teams making these mods (There's not enough for that though). GTANet doesn't inherent notability from them though. --
296::Complicated = this page's notability. I was exploring and gathering rules for notability establishment for forums from many wikipedia's guidelines as this page's notability might be in question. So here we go. Important thing to notice: we are talking about internet forum. Forums, by definition, are rarely notable other than to their members. But, and this is a big
394:), slaying all non-secondary sources, and revisiting in the future. CCCD's sources appear to be much more about fan response to GTA than specifically about modding. If the fan activity doesn't fit into a coherent narrative about things fans coalesce around, those citations should be removed as trivia. In essence, the article should be a
861:
What Gtanet article lacks is sources that explore it in-depth. I managed to find a lot of references, however they mostly discuss content found there. I was not aware that main page doesn't inherit notability of content. Therefore, gtanet would need in-depth coverage to be stand alone article. I will
682:
This was not a Google search I did. I checked the references you put in the article, as they currently are, and that was the results of clicking them. I'm sorry you disagree with my interpretations, but it's all trivial. There's no in depth coverage of the site itself, just various coverage of things
339:
Content of this subject caused both political and cultural impact. This forum was found relevant enough to be taken down for leaks, it is considered as relevant gta news website for illustrious gaming informers, it is a place which invented modding tools praised both by rockstar and gaming informers,
303:
Forum is community of members, their message board. How to describe an internet forum? It is message board whose formatting is well known: you have registration options, pm option, posting option and that's basically it. So every forum is the same thing other discussion? This assumption is something
667:
11, 19, 31, 34, 36, 45, 46, these are interpreted especially wrong. First if you want to use google news search on this topic then delete .com of gtaforums and gtanet and you'll see more results. It doesn't mean that the article is trivial just because it's primary subject isn't gtanet or gtaforum.
415:
70 references aren't real number. Out of them 70 there are around 20 that are wp:gng while others should be removed or kept just for statistics (alexa). I understand the problem about this site and notability. There are little sources that discuss site itself. However there are some. They are not
214:
with sources, but they're all either unreliable, trivial, or primary (mostly reblogged press releases). Many don't even mention GTAN or the individual fansites, and those that do simply give them credit for the tip. There is no significant coverage of the network itself in reliable, third-party
638:
I don't see anything here that helps with WP:N. This is after the main editor involved in the article cleaned out a large number of primary/trivial sources. I think if I removed all the sources I consider at the very best "trivial", if not outright unrelated, the article might have 3 surviving
762:. Despite being a fairly large article, it doesn't say anything informational or otherwise noteworthy, let alone that being backed up by a valid, objective, well-established source. And as was said before, popularity does not mean notability. --
422:
GTAForums, a popular site for mod makers of the game. The visitors were often anonymous, logging on under assumed names and rarely, if ever, meeting in person... The modding community felt like a bunch of friends trying to solve a
683:
people did or the barest mention of "Via GTANet". The simple fact of the matter is that most fan sites aren't notable, and that's the case here. In addition, there's just so much OR synthesis here. One of the best examples is
307:
The evidence that the organization or its product has attracted the notice proves the notability. This organization and its products both were subject of sources and information on the importance of the subject.
171:
340:
modding section's attention from media is exceptional, if this site was relevant enough to cause media coverage noise among both informers and gta fans with a prank, than there is no way it fails WP:N.
300:, exception proves the rule. And GTANet is an exception. Knowledge (XXG) has no clear rule on how to establish forum's notability because forum is so much different media than all other websites.
363:
and what's most important is this: what sources discuss the site/forum itself in depth? (Not a product of fans via the site, but the site itself.) And how is the site distinguished from general
653:
Additional thought/note in regards to CZAR's comments about a fandom article, having checked through many of these sources, I do not believe they would support a fandom article either. --
545:
Somewhat better source that focuses on a Google Map created for GTA4 by gta4.net. This is the first source that mentions GTANet.com at all. All previous sources have been GTAForums only.
581:
Bad source. Google Books was searched for "gtamodding", presumably one of the sub-sites of GTANet.com. However it found "GTA Modding" in the title of a reference to a Polish GTA site.
124:
594:
Bad source, another google book with GTAForums as the search key, but it appears to be failing to match anything in the article, perhaps due to some sort of translation issue.
709:
244:
165:
685:
Many reputable gaming news websites, as well as
Rockstar, acknowledged the quality of fan made material on GTANet, with Digital Trends describing it as dedicated.
491:
Trivial mention that the site admin was invited to the event. No indepth coverage of the site except for the last section, which was written by the admin himself.
434:
321:
425:
Then, there are articles (by qj and n4g) regarding the takeover of gtaforum by EA, first source on this, by whatifgaming is however not acquirable by wayback.
232:
575:
Game developer's blog, mentioning the GTA4 map created by gta4.net. Discussion is about the map, not the site, which is simply listed as "Via GTANet.com"
426:
317:
417:
503:
Best source so far, but the content of the source is primarily about bugs in GTA V, GTA Forums is simply a place people were posting about them.
740:, but popularityĀ != notability. The coverage of individual mods which are credited/linked to GTANet is not in-depth coverage enough to satisfy
612:
Reliable source covering the same April Fool's Day hoax. At least this is actually about the site somewhat, but notability by itself it is not.
131:
802:
material about GtaForums and GtaGarage (which are two of the sister-sites within the GtaNet group-slash-web-ring-kinda), and their role in
494:
No coverage of the site itself, only a blurp that "GTAForums" posted some details from a Q&A. This source is about GTA V, not the site.
819:
17:
773:
845:
262:
750:
630:
The site went down shortly after leaking that a new trailer for GTA would be released soon. No information on cause. Trivial.
97:
92:
497:
No direct coverage of the site beyond mentioning that specific users and "users" in general from the forum had done things.
367:
fandom such that it wouldn't be adequate to include the aforementioned refs in a "fandom" section of the series article? ā
101:
506:
Trivial mention that users of the site built a good guess in a single sentence. Rest of article focuses on GTA V content.
438:
329:
186:
875:
673:
464:
446:
345:
898:
153:
40:
509:
Same as above. Article is about GTA V map content, with a trivial mention that users of the forums made their own map.
433:
one. Their main subject may not be giving info on gtanet, but they included enough info not to be treated as trivial.
84:
795:
391:
609:
Appears to be an unreliable source, reporting a GTANet.com April Fool's Day hoax claiming that EA bought the site.
395:
250:
238:
615:
n4g.com is not a reliable source, I believe, as it's a news aggregater. This is just a repost of the next source.
867:
841:
833:
53:
521:
Article is about a hoax done by forum user theNGclan, with only a trivial mention of which forums (GTA Forums)
360:
871:
669:
536:
Small foot note stating that the content discussed is hosted at GTAForums. No direct discussion of GTAForums.
460:
442:
387:
341:
823:
147:
811:
799:
591:
Bad source. Link to a google book with "gtanet.com" as the search key, but Google replies "0 results found"
818:
for the material therein which *is* reliably-sourced, either in the existing article or on the talkpage.
627:
Another article about Hot Coffee Mod. Trivial mentions to gtagarage.com, where the mod had been released.
554:
Sources is about a specific mod, only mention of GTAForums is in regards to the mod author posting there.
894:
36:
815:
143:
879:
856:
827:
778:
754:
721:
696:
677:
662:
648:
600:
Repeat coverage of GTA4.com's Google Maps version of GTA4. No coverage of site, coverage is about map.
468:
450:
406:
375:
349:
284:
224:
66:
767:
791:
309:
618:
Can't recall if Qj.net is reliable, but this is an update to the April Fool's Day hoax and trivial.
179:
193:
280:
220:
61:
717:
557:
Same mod as sources 20 and 21. No mention of GTAForums other than that the author is a member.
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
893:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
512:
Trivial mention that a user of the forum noticed which actor was listed in IMDB for GTA V....
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
692:
658:
644:
624:
No discussion of the site beyond noting that a member had scanned an early magazine release.
551:
Unreliable source, download page for a mod. Only mention of GTAForums is a link to a thread.
430:
313:
741:
633:
Coverage of a GTA 3 mod. Only mention of sites in question is as a link on where to get it.
356:
763:
88:
569:
Currently a deadlink so cannot comment. Venturebeat seems to be having tech difficulties.
500:
Content is about GTA V, GTA Forums mentioned only as the source of the comparison images.
621:
Extremely short blurb about a mod, only mention of GTAForums/GTANet.com is to source it.
256:
159:
585:
515:
Zero discussion of GTAForums beyond trivial mention as a source. Article is about GTA V
207:
203:
745:
542:
Unreliable source, this is just GTAForums' "social group" on
Rockstars "clan" system.
276:
216:
713:
524:
Trivial mention that forum members of GTAForums have made gifs... followed by gifs.
560:
No discussion of GTAForums, other than a trivial mention as the source of a quote.
539:
Extremely trivial mention of GTAForums, no discussion of site beyond a "shout out"
118:
441:
one gives a lot of in depth to its modding section even though not being subject.
325:
733:
688:
654:
640:
57:
584:
Article has a few quotes from
Illspirit, admin for gtagarage.com, but is about
60:
for the detailed analysis of sources, that was most helpful to the discussion.
807:
803:
80:
72:
806:
and later mods. This approach would satisfy wiki-honor about the removal of
849:
787:
399:
368:
333:
790:
in this case) to the AfD-discussion, but will say that I think sufficient
578:
Another map with a youtube video, no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
416:
exceptionally in depth, but should serve enough for wp:n establishment.
548:
No mention of GTANet or any related sites at all, nor any link to them.
480:
Per nom, but here's my complete run down of the sources as they are in
572:
Discussion of various mods with no mention of GTAForums or GTANet.com.
459:
as much primary or trivial references I could to make it readable.
887:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
518:
Again, trivial mention of GTAForums users as source for leaks.
736:'s very well-done analysis of each reference. The site is
668:
Their content counts as well especially where highlighted.
398:
expansion of a fandom section within the series article. ā
437:
one is sole covering and giving attention to gtanet and
481:
359:. Let's take a step back. The article has already been
269:
114:
110:
106:
178:
786:, not bangvoting myself, since I asked another user (
868:
Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities
842:
Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities
192:
54:
Grand Theft Auto modding#Online_modding_communities
836:. I gave the creator some advice on my talk page.
606:No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
603:No mention at all of GTAnet.com and related sites.
380:Barring positive answers to the above, I suggest
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
901:). No further edits should be made to this page.
848:āthere's no need to delete the edit history.) ā
233:list of video game-related deletion discussions
844:as a valid search term for that section. (And
639:sources, and they'd still be trivial ones. --
710:list of Websites-related deletion discussions
8:
708:Note: This debate has been included in the
355:WP doesn't need rules for forumsāit has the
231:Note: This debate has been included in the
707:
261:
588:, not Gtagarage.com or related sites.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
814:, but still simultaneously satisfy
267:
24:
597:Primary source to gtagarage.com
255:
796:Draft:Grand Theft Auto modding
429:one can be counted as well as
392:Grand Theft Auto mod community
1:
249:
357:general notability guideline
243:
880:10:04, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
857:04:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
828:00:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
779:09:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
755:08:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
722:23:21, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
697:14:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
678:09:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
663:22:17, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
649:22:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
469:21:10, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
451:20:42, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
407:19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
376:19:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
350:18:44, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
285:17:33, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
237:
225:17:32, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
67:02:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
918:
832:The new article's live at
336:are some of the examples.
890:Please do not modify it.
834:Grand Theft Auto modding
794:exist to write a decent
533:Alexa, doesn't help WP:N
32:Please do not modify it.
388:Grand Theft Auto fandom
798:article, rescuing the
420:one says as I quote:
846:redirects are cheap
566:Source 24 repeated.
563:Source 19 repeated.
530:Source 12 repeated.
872:Cha cha cha dancer
862:change my vote to
670:Cha cha cha dancer
527:Source 7 repeated.
461:Cha cha cha dancer
443:Cha cha cha dancer
342:Cha cha cha dancer
48:The result was
724:
287:
210:. The article is
65:
909:
892:
854:
404:
373:
365:Grand Theft Auto
274:
273:
272:
265:
259:
253:
247:
241:
230:
197:
196:
182:
134:
122:
104:
64:
34:
917:
916:
912:
911:
910:
908:
907:
906:
905:
899:deletion review
888:
850:
753:
400:
369:
268:
236:
139:
130:
95:
79:
76:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
915:
913:
904:
903:
883:
882:
859:
830:
781:
757:
749:
726:
725:
705:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
636:
635:
634:
631:
628:
625:
622:
619:
616:
613:
610:
607:
604:
601:
598:
595:
592:
589:
586:Hot Coffee mod
582:
579:
576:
573:
570:
567:
564:
561:
558:
555:
552:
549:
546:
543:
540:
537:
534:
531:
528:
525:
522:
519:
516:
513:
510:
507:
504:
501:
498:
495:
492:
486:
485:
474:
473:
472:
471:
453:
410:
409:
378:
289:
288:
200:
199:
136:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
914:
902:
900:
896:
891:
885:
884:
881:
877:
873:
869:
865:
860:
858:
855:
853:
847:
843:
839:
835:
831:
829:
825:
821:
820:75.108.94.227
817:
813:
812:WP:NotJustYet
809:
805:
801:
800:WP:NOTEWORTHY
797:
793:
789:
785:
782:
780:
777:
776:
771:
770:
765:
761:
758:
756:
752:
747:
743:
739:
735:
731:
728:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
706:
698:
694:
690:
686:
681:
680:
679:
675:
671:
666:
665:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
637:
632:
629:
626:
623:
620:
617:
614:
611:
608:
605:
602:
599:
596:
593:
590:
587:
583:
580:
577:
574:
571:
568:
565:
562:
559:
556:
553:
550:
547:
544:
541:
538:
535:
532:
529:
526:
523:
520:
517:
514:
511:
508:
505:
502:
499:
496:
493:
490:
489:
488:
487:
483:
482:this revision
479:
476:
475:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
452:
448:
444:
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
419:
414:
413:
412:
411:
408:
405:
403:
397:
396:summary style
393:
389:
385:
384:
379:
377:
374:
372:
366:
362:
358:
354:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
337:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
305:
301:
299:
295:
294:
286:
282:
278:
271:
264:
258:
252:
246:
240:
234:
229:
228:
227:
226:
222:
218:
213:
209:
205:
195:
191:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
145:
142:
141:Find sources:
137:
133:
129:
126:
120:
116:
112:
108:
103:
99:
94:
90:
86:
82:
78:
77:
74:
71:
69:
68:
63:
62:Seraphimblade
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
889:
886:
863:
851:
837:
783:
774:
768:
759:
737:
729:
684:
477:
456:
421:
401:
382:
381:
370:
364:
338:
306:
302:
297:
292:
291:
290:
211:
201:
189:
183:
175:
168:
162:
156:
150:
140:
127:
56:. Thanks to
49:
47:
31:
28:
816:WP:PRESERVE
455:I tried to
383:repurposing
166:free images
808:GTANet.com
804:Hot Coffee
792:WP:SOURCES
764:Soetermans
81:GTANet.com
73:GTANet.com
895:talk page
810:as being
788:User:czar
714:ā¢ Gene93k
361:refbombed
215:sources.
37:talk page
897:or in a
864:Redirect
838:Redirect
751:Contribs
423:mystery.
277:Woodroar
217:Woodroar
125:View log
50:redirect
39:or in a
784:Comment
738:popular
457:destroy
172:WPĀ refs
160:scholar
98:protect
93:history
760:Delete
742:WP:GNG
734:ferret
730:Delete
689:ferret
655:ferret
641:ferret
478:Delete
212:filled
202:Fails
144:Google
102:delete
58:Ferret
187:JSTOR
148:books
132:Stats
119:views
111:watch
107:links
16:<
876:talk
852:czar
824:talk
748:ā āā /
746:Nick
744:. --
732:per
718:talk
693:talk
674:talk
659:talk
645:talk
465:talk
447:talk
439:this
435:This
431:this
427:This
418:This
402:czar
390:(or
371:czar
346:talk
293:Keep
281:talk
270:Talk
221:talk
208:WP:V
206:and
204:WP:N
180:FENS
154:news
115:logs
89:talk
85:edit
866:to
840:to
386:to
298:but
235:. (
194:TWL
123:ā (
52:to
878:)
826:)
772:/
766:.
720:)
712:.
695:)
676:)
661:)
647:)
467:)
449:)
348:)
332:,
328:,
324:,
320:,
316:,
312:,
283:)
275:)
263:RS
223:)
174:)
117:|
113:|
109:|
105:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
874:(
870:.
822:(
775:C
769:T
716:(
691:(
672:(
657:(
643:(
484:.
463:(
445:(
344:(
334:7
330:6
326:5
322:4
318:3
314:2
310:1
279:(
266:Ā·
260:Ā·
257:S
254:Ā·
251:B
248:Ā·
245:N
242:Ā·
239:G
219:(
198:)
190:Ā·
184:Ā·
176:Ā·
169:Ā·
163:Ā·
157:Ā·
151:Ā·
146:(
138:(
135:)
128:Ā·
121:)
83:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.