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 17:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Grand Theft Auto III canon[edit]

Listcruft. Any relevant information should be in the plot section of the article on the game. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-22 09:19

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. JACOPLANE • 2007-01-22 09:21

• Delete there's is no need for a timeline, and this is useless to anyone who doesn't play. DurinsBane87 09:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Careful, DurinsBane87. People can argue that timelines of, say, Star Trek is useless to people that don't like Star Trek. On that note, though... I do not think there is a good way to present the timeline of this canon with so few things to draw from... I support Delete. - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 04:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The plot has already been commented upon in the main article. It's redundant and likely doesn't have any meaning to the general reader. Combination 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The first afd was based on the uncleanliness and lack of sourcing. Since then the article has proved it's self useful, and has been well sourced and kept free from garbage. The timeline features something that is nowhere else online, a comprehensive look at the different links between the different games. Also, it is useful to people who have never even heard of the games. All the important events in, and surrounding the games in the canon are listed here, in the correct order. No reason for deletion whatsoever. Ganfon 13:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain how this is informative to readers who have not played the games in the GTA series. Just because the article is useful does not mean it belongs on Wikipedia (see: WP:ILIKEIT), and Wikipedia should not be the place for people to store information according to their own needs and discretion. If you want to compile a timeline, turn it into a guide and post it on GameFAQs or StrategyWiki. --Scottie theNerd 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • True, it doesn't give full out character descriptions right there, but it does have links to many of them. From there the article states the important events in the series from a realistic standpoint, rather than just experiencing them in a game. It's not a plot summery. True it does include many aspects of one, but they usually include bits of character descriptions, even if this is as simple as '-this made John irate, causing him to-". This article is a great reference, for both players and non-players to see what actually happens in the game instead of writing it off as just 'drive around and kill people'. I don't want to make a huge thing out of this. True it's not the traditional article, but it is encyclopedic and helpful. It's been around awhile and I know people have turned to it, and done a lot of work on it. I think it should stay. Ganfon 20:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just because a lot of work has been put into it doesn't mean it automatically belongs on Wikipedia. What you said is exactly what I pointed out: Wikipedia is not the place to store information according to what's useful to you. As it stands, the timeline is a list of trivial information that would not interest readers outside of the series, and is more appropriate on any of the sites already mentioned in this debate. Timelines are not exactly popular on Wikipedia, and some might argue that they're not encyclopedic. I'm not sure what you're replying to; you're supposedly acknowledging points I didn't make. --Scottie theNerd 21:15, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you're putting words in my mouth because I never mentioned anything about this information being useful to me, therefore it belongs. Also, I'm not sure I agree with arguing what people will or will not find interesting. popularity is also not a basis for what is or isn't encyclopedic. Ganfon 21:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I didn't specifically say the article was useful to you either. You're taking arguments too personally, and you're forming arguments that go against textbook Wikipedia policies. Popularity isn't a reason for an inappropriate article to remain on Wikipedia. --Scottie theNerd 21:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Look, I'm not trying to make this a huge debate. I think that the article isn't violating policy, it is useful, it is encyclopedic, and should be kept. That's all. Ganfon 21:52, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • For someone who has a Strong Keep stance, you don't seem to be familiar with Wikipedia policy at all. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia standards before participating in deletion debates. Deletions are done through quality of arguments rather than votes, and your comment doesn't add much. --Scottie theNerd 22:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unnecessary article for an encyclopedia. The content is difficult to verify, one of the external links listed in the section sources does not work and three of the links are to the same fansite, hardly reliable sources of information. Not to mention that the whole article is listcruft of the highest calibre and should probably make its way over to a gaming wiki. Timkovski 13:55, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:NOT indiscriminate information - Plot summaries in particular, various other its of the policy too. The Kinslayer 15:01, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clear violation of WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of trivial information. The formatting of the article is irrelevant - if it stays, it needs cleanup. However, the timeline has little encyclopedic value outside of the series, and is a simply a collection of mission events. As the plots are summarised in each game article, there is little reason to make a timeline, and no other timeline has been made for any game or game series. --Scottie theNerd 15:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above Bwithh 16:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Thought actually somewhat helpful in figuring the chronological order of the series' events, this is rather useless to "outsiders", that is, "non"-fans of GTA. Needs to be added to GTA Wiki, if anything, which I would gladly help do, if all possible. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit me § Contributions} ♣ 18:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. Cornell Rockey 21:20, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. A good example of listcruft that is better suited for a video game wiki. RobJ1981 21:56, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but give somemone a chance to transwiki it to a gaming wiki. I think this passes WP:V (the games themselves can be used as primary sources, and guides likely exist for these games) and could be useful to someone not playing the game: since GTA is a popular example of violent video games I could certainly imagine someone wanting to catalogue the events that take place for a writeup. But that value is minimal and the article is far too specialized for an encyclopedia. — brighterorange (talk) 22:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete WP:NOTstates that acrticles only about plot are not allowed.--Dacium 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Transwiki per BrightOrange, I don't believe this is at all suitable for the encyclopedia, but I'm sure a GTA wiki would be pleased with this! QuagmireDog 01:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per DurinsBane87. Also this has already been put onto the GTA Wikia. A-Dust 15:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful, everything in its place and nothing wasted, changing suggestion. QuagmireDog 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete already transwikified, this material isn't suitable for WP but is listed elsewhere for fans to tinker with. QuagmireDog 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --SkyWalker 18:22, 24 January 2007 (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.