Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/X Motor Racing

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 no consensus. No clear consensus - default is to remain (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

X Motor Racing

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

This article may not meet WP:N with its current source coverage. It has listing entries in reliable sources such as Gamespot IGN GameZone GameTrailers or 1UP. There are other entries as well. However, none of these are reviews or say anything that establishes notability except directory entry with some screenshots/videos. The only descriptive/evaluative post is the very short RockPaperShotgun entry. I deliberately skip non-notable or unreliable sources. Currently, I do not see the notability of the game and suggest ~~salting~~ incubating it until a proper review surfaces.

I am not basing this judgement on the WP:GAMECRUFT and highly WP:PROMO tone of the content itself with indication of WP:COI. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. — Hellknowz ▎talk 14:16, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

H3llkn0wz, you want to delete this page because saw my changes at Game_development page and estimated it as advertisement. Could you substantiate where there ads or any honest string regarded as advertising? If you are going to delete this page then I suggest to delete all articles about games that don’t have review. Forza_man —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Your addition to Game development article stemmed my curiosity of why you believed the game should be mentioned in the lead. I then read the main article, the history, and browsed the sources. I then asked on IRC if this seemed notable to others, and finally nominated it.

As I made it perfectly clear, this is not based on the promotional/gamerufty content. I do not claim that this is an advertisement, I said it has promotional tone, which I am happy to clean up and rephrase should the notability be established. I have no prejudice to userfy, incubate and recreate this article.

I am honestly very neutral on this game, but despite the amount of work that went into it, I prefer that clear notability is established by consensus first. If my intentions were pure deletion, I would not have listed all the reliable/notable sources above. — Hellknowz ▎talk 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I say that any article has a bit promotional tone.

An article about C # in a sense, promotes C #, article about Java promotes Java etc.

This is a niche project and there are few similar projects in the world.

If you didn’t hear about this (or similar) project, it means that have not been spent $ 20 millions for advertisement, but this doesn’t mean that people don’t need such articles. — Forza_man ▎talk 17:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a common, but invalid, argument. Many unadvertised independent games have received the level of coverage required for an article here. Marasmusine (talk) 18:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to appropriate list. Directory entries and press releases abound, but no significant coverage. The Rock Paper Shotgun link is adequate for verification if we wish this to be at least placed in game list articles. Marasmusine (talk) 18:14, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. "The game is used in education, real motor sport and automotive industry for R&D by some teams, for example, McGill University, or ItalDesign." Can this be sourced? That would establish notability imo. — Hellknowz ▎talk 18:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can find these confirmations on the official forum. http://www.racedepartment.com/x-motor-racing/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandro sds (talk • contribs) 20:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are not reliable sources. — Hellknowz ▎talk 21:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specialized forums are reliable sources of information.

If you not agree, you can contact to McGill University and ItalDesign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandro sds (talk • contribs) 21:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is editorial oversight, forums are not reliable for Wikipedia as per policy.— Hellknowz ▎talk 21:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article gives information about racing simulator which is in developing all the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forza man (talk • contribs) 18:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This does not address the notability issue; many projects — notable and non-notable alike — are in constant development. — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – lack of significant coverage from any reliable sources (at least I couldn't find any). Many of the sources given doesn't even take those steps toward establishing notability and seem to indicate original research. –MuZemike 14:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weakening my "delete" !vote per the one source below discovered. If more reliable sources as such can be found, I'd be happy to change to "keep". –MuZemike 16:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This project contains some significant improvements in vehicle dynamics simulation. Source: http://www.autosimsport.net/issues/aUtosimsport_v3i02.zip

. –Alexandro sds —Preceding undated comment added 16:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This seems like a pretty good source. Pages 18-20 being relevant. The article would then need to be reworked to represent the sources. Do you have any more magazine entries that are available? — Hellknowz ▎talk 16:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I know autosimsport.net is the only magazine dedicated to sim racing. Exchange of information occurs on the specialized forums. –Alexandro sds —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.241.245.139 (talk) 17:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete / Comment - The only source I found that seems to be useful has already been listed. The article has several poor references, including multiple YouTube videos, which are considered unreliable. I have tagged the article with current issues. Should the result come up as "No consensus" or "Keep" interested editors should improve the article in order to keep it from coming back up for another deletion discussion a few months down the road. --Teancum (talk) 12:46, 27 May 2010 (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.