Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RailDriver

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The result was keep or nomination withdrawn, take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RailDriver

Article cites single source, contains a copyrighted image, it is over detailed and reads like an advert, there is now mentions of product at Train simulator and Game_controller#Others Jezhotwells (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have rewritten from WP:NPOV, cited with WP:RELIABLE and now ask for this nomination for AfD to be withdrawn. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:49, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 15:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A general article on train simulation hardware and how it works would probably be appropriate... on the other hand, without sources to claim notability/market share/whatever, an article specifically on one brand-name product is probably not appropriate. Politizer ^talk/_contribs 17:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral -copyrighted image can be removed, I don't agree that the article reads like an advert - though it is over detailed. References from third parties (ie reviews of the product) have been provided and could be easily incorporated into the article. The main question is one of notability in my opinion, and I cannot decide whether or not this product is notable enough for its own article.Carrolljon (talk) 17:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm venturing a Weak Keep, based on [1][2]. Verifiability shouldn't be an issue, though I don't know that I could assuage notability concerns. --Izno (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen comments elsewhere that http://www.train-sim.com/ is not a WP:Reliable source as it is a fan site with no statement of editorial process. I was hoping the article creator would show up. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:22, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep including the image, which is fair use for a product to show what the product is--the layout of a games controller cannot be explained in just words. Products notable in their niche, however small, are notable. DGG (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as presented, does not satisfy WP:V or WP:N. Mindful of what DGG has said, there is a review here [3] and here [4] - I think these pass WP:RS. Marasmusine (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I belive that they are both fan site / forums with no statement of editorial process, thus not WP:Reliable Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Here's some more: Model Railroader Magazine, TotalVideoGames, Forbes, gizmag, Boing Boing, Engadget, Kotaku. SharkD (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theres at least one WP:Reliable there, possibly two if you count a mention in passing. Fan sites / forums, etc are not reliable. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the above sites are fansites/forums?! SharkD (talk) 00:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok: I mistook trains.com for trainsim.com, Forbes and gizmag look good, engadget is referring to a different product, kotaku is a forum/blog and just mentions the product by name, boing boing is a blog/forum. If you work the good ones into the article as inline citations that would be good, I am still not sure about notability. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(contd) The article still reads like a spec sheet and it is still about one product. I'll have another look and see if it can be rewritten in some better way. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:19, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woops! I should have looked more closely. BTW, here's the TechEBlog article Kotaku is referring to. As for Kotaku itself, it is listed as being reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. This is the first I've heard of the others, though. SharkD (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2009 (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.