Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of racing simulators

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 October 17.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of racing simulators

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

The article is a jumble of unstructured and in many places nonsensical information. It is purely OR and the article comprises of almost exclusively tables without prose. This article is not suitable for an encylopedia in its current form, and I don't see how it ever can be. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm impressed by the work done on the article, and by the game developers too! However (as was suggested on the page itself) this would be more suitable for a game wiki. Too much detail except for serious fans or industry insiders. Wolfview (talk) 00:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Good idea. But it would be nice if there were an automated way of moving articles, or at least informing them (Wikia for instance) when this is the case. SharkD Talk 21:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- N/A 0 03:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wolfview. Someone should move this to a gaming wiki. N/A 0 03:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Reach Out to the Truth 04:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gameguide. Good on an external wiki, but not here. Some sources are probably good to use for a racing video game article, however, to note generalized differences between games. --MASEM (t) 04:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since most of those listed are notable, a comparison is relevant. A comparison intrinsically uses tables, not prose--its the clearest way to do it, and I think every such article in Wikipedia does so. DGG ( talk ) 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only real issue is OR (for the too much detail thing, see WP:PAPER). I think this is just a matter of sourcing and in-line cites. As these are almost entirely black-and-white factual things the primary source is even acceptable as a way to avoid OR. Hobit (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is also an issue of lasting importance. It will be of very little interest 5 or 10 years from now when the technology will have (I'm sure) greatly advanced. If you say the article will have also have been constantly updated to keep up, then (to me anyway) you are saying that it's not really an article to read but a data service. That's a very worthwhile thing but not really the purpose of an encyclopedia. No one will want to read an article on "The State of Racing Simulators in 2010," in this level of detail that is. Wolfview (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's kind of a superfluous argument, as that could be said about many things within WP:VG. --Teancum (talk) 01:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete- to me, the issue is synthesis. Has a list like this been compiled somewhere else? If not, we should not be the first. From what I've seen of the few cited sources, none of them present the information for the purpose of comparing one game against another, so for us to do so would be a violation of WP:SYNTH. We would be conducting original research by drawing novel conclusions from the sources. But I realize that our standards for tables is lower than it is for articles, so I am open to being persuaded otherwise if there's a good enough reason. Of course, I will change my vote if someone comes up with sources that do explicitly compare these things. Reyk _YO! 06:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete topic and sections are OR, and content violates WP:GAMEGUIDE. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:19, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm a little concerned about OR here; for example, several games have a "Pacejka-like" tyre model. Was this found out from the game manuals or developer interviews, or did the author just decide this was the case? The article also screams "indiscriminate information" to me. Marasmusine (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I just checked, and the article seems to already exist at Wikia. Link. We just need to copy the list of contributors over for attribution purposes. SharkD Talk 21:59, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. SharkD Talk 22:14, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't do much here anymore so I don't know if my vote will count, but this seems to based more or less entirely a comparison of press bumf. I mean, so simulator A models "wall deformation", does it? In what manner does it model "wall deformation"? What if it's a completely inept and useless model of "wall deformation" which in actuality bears no resemblance to actual real-life tyre wall deformation? In what way is simulator B "based on data from tire manufacturers"? Could be read as just a high-falutin' way of saying "based on a real car". Comparison of such claims by game publishers is entirely non-encyclopedic. Jamieli (talk) 00:49, 10 August 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.