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 . The concensus appears to be that the Wired article is enough to carry notability. Marasmusine (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BVE Trainsim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Notability still not established with reliable sources. ZoeL (talk) 23:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- Ikip (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep well referenced article. Meets notability guidelines. Ikip (talk) 01:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are not reliable sources, and do not establish that there exist multiple non-trivial published works of which this software was the subject. Andre (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my AfD in 2006, and also delete openBVE. No reliable sources for inclusion or any way of meeting attribution guidelines. Andre (talk) 01:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article does not meet notability (WP:N) which requires verifiability (WP:V). There are no third-party sources, only personal websites, open wikis and users' forum posts, which doesn't meet WP:NOR either. WP:RS allows non-third party sources, but only if originating from an expert whose publications already appeared in a third-party source, which isn't the case here. 87.123.97.228 (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please log in, so your insightful comment can be matched with a username. Andre (talk) 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated in nomination. ZoeL (talk) 02:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment All of the !voters in the previous AfD have so kindly been invited to join this conversation by Ikip. Certainly not because the consensus was different than the way its heading here. </sarcasm> ThemFromSpace 02:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ThemFromSpace, Wikipedia:Canvassing#Votestacking:

"Some Wikipedians have suggested that informing editors on all "sides" of a debate (e.g., everyone who participated in a previous deletion debate on a given subject) may be acceptable."

This is based on a lot of arguments on the subject.

Ikip (talk) 05:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: The program's community has always existed solely on personal websites and wikis. While it may not be as documented as some may like, that in itself doesn't disqualify it from its own article. I'm also sure Wikipedia has no shortage of non-documented articles that deserve deletion. This isn't one of them. --Julie-Anne Driver (talk) 05:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • With your reasoning, every program can have its own encyclopedic article as long as there is a fan base. The problem with this, however, is that if an article about such a program is solely written by the fans (which you can see from taking a look at which sources are being used), the article cannot inherently have a neutral point of view. If the fan base writes an article about their program, then they are advertising it based upon their own personal experiences and opinions which they publish on their personal sites. Obviously, you can post anything on your personal site and then claim to have found a source that attributes what you want to write in the article, but this is exactly the reason why Wikipedia doesn't tolerate such sources. Please read WP:V which explicitly mentions this. Please note that this is an official content policy, not just a guideline. Here a few quotes:

"Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Anyone can create a website [...] then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether [...] personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings [...] are largely not acceptable." "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources [...] so long as [...] the article is not based primarily on such sources."

You are asking for an exception to an official content policy. 87.123.81.60 (talk) 09:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: As per Julie-Anne Driver. If the criteria suggested by Andre for deletion is followed you'll need to delete VLC media player as well which is faintly ridiculous. To follow this would affect most freeware and probably a lot of commercial software as well. Alex Sims (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That article seems to be poorly referenced. However, despite this, I believe it could probably be easily referenced by reliable third party sources, since I think VLC media player is fairly notable and was probably written up in magazines, newspapers, reliable source websites like CNET or Wired, the exceptions for certain blogs or self-published pages, etc. (here are some: [1] [2] [3] [4]). This article was nominated for deletion several years ago and kept under the assumption that sources could be found. Magazines and other publications were mentioned but none were provided. We are forced to conclude that sufficient references do not exist or cannot be found. Andre (talk) 11:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just added a citation from Wired News. Is that a help? Alex Sims (talk) 09:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's a good start, but more reliable sources are needed if you want a very strong case to keep the article - Mailer Diablo 17:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete for lack of third-party reliable sources. - Mailer Diablo 10:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Although it's a very popular game (it has eaten many of my hours that should have been spent doing something productive), it doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines. A quick search hasn't turned up any reviews other than forum postings etc - nothing that passes WP:RS. I'm surprised there isn't anything more substantial out there, but, if there isn't, the article has to go. Tevildo (talk) 11:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it is admittedly a very popular game, and if verifiable material is availableto talk about it, it is notable. popularity is notthe same as notability, but it is one form, of it (unmpopular things can be notable as well). DGG (talk) 07:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Covered at Wired News here. Also, it is a popular game. Coverage is reliable sources is not always the best way to determine importance. --Apoc2400 (talk) 12:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may well be a popular game but please see Wikipedia:Verifiability "Articles should be based upon reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." ZoeL (talk) 13:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, what is wired news? Ikip (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wired News is, I would suggest a reliable source. Alex Sims (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would accept Wired News per se, however, an article called The Best Free Train Simulator isn't exactly the best source to base a neutral-point-of-view article on. 89.247.232.105 (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. We'd shitcan someone's essay about how awesome the game is, but when a reliable source gushes on and on, then we need to reflect that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I consider the article to be notable for the following reasons. The section about openBVE describes software that is a new version of BVETrainsim, written over the past year, without any information or assistance from the original writer. This is a new program that copies the features of BVE Trainsim as an open source program. I would suggest that if a piece of work is copied, this implies that the original piece of work is worth copying and therefore noteable. Also the fact that many individuals have independently created routes to work with BVE Trainsim also points to its notability. The article on openBVE is also currently being considered for deletion. One possible option is to merge the articles as a summary of software that uses the techniques pioneered by BVE Trainsim, giving openBVE equal prominance. This also addresses the comment that the article is written like an advertisment.--Chris1515 (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There are more reliable sources on OpenBVE ([5] [6] [7] [8] [9]) than there are about BVE Trainsim ([10]). Why has OpenBVE's article been deleted today, but I'm pretty convinced that this article will stay? This already feels like a systemic bias. If this article was in fact about BVE Trainsim, then why is OpenBVE, a different software, included as a subsection? It's not an add-on after all, but a different piece of software. The section should be removed. To sum this article up: A history section, which is a self-description of the programmer's views, a tools sections, which is an unsorted list of advertised software, and what is remaining quotes from fewer reliable sources than was available for OpenBVE, which got deleted. I don't understand it. 89.247.213.247 (talk) 16:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added references to reviews on websites outside the program's user community--Chris1515 (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not surprised that the openBVE article was deleted. No-one said KEEP in its discussion and the article had already been deleted 7 days before, so I do not expect it will be allowed to return. I hope that this article, which has been here since 2004, will be kept. If a separate openBVE article is not being allowed at present, the only option is to include it as a subsection of this BVE Trainsim article. As indicated in my previous comment, I would suggest that this article should start with a summary of those aspects that are common to both programs, followed by a description of each program.--Chris1515 (talk) 23:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion is not a vote. By the way, it does not make any sense to keep two different programs under one common article that has the name of just one of these programs. If this article is about BVE Trainsim, then it should be so, with all references to openBVE removed (which is a different piece of software). If an article about Linux wasn't allowed, you wouldn't want to include all information you know about Linux in an article on Windows, either, do you? And also, how long an article has been available here is irrelevant to Wikipedia's content policies. If five suggested sources on openBVE result in a deletion of one article, then only one source of comparable quality cannot rectify a keep. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make an amendment: WP:N - Including two programs under a common article, and naming that article after just one of these programs, cannot be neutral. If you had two separate topics, e.g. British English and American English, you wouln't file it under British English, either. If it's two programs - and both have equally weak sources - then there should be two articles. And if not, then the program unaffiliated with this article should not be mentioned here. Otherwise, I begin to see a bias among Wikipedians and admins: in that they favor one sim over the other and handle both differently - especially as they are closely related. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Good find on the Wired article. With the sources on OpenBVE, there seems to be enough to establish notability, though I'd prefer more. Fences and windows (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources on openBVE establish - if anything - notability for openBVE, but not for BVE Trainsim. 87.123.90.47 (talk) 01:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Wired magazine gives it a third party media coverage, which meets the current notability guidelines. Dream Focus 01:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep There are two third party reviews by different individuals at http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve4 and http://www.uktrainsim.com/index2.php?form_reader=bve.Eezypeazy (talk)
• Comment The article Train simulator lists 7 train driving simulations, including BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The other 5 commercial software products that are listed each have their own article. None of these are being considered for deletion, even though some have fewer references than BVE Trainsim or openBVE. If individual software products are only entitled to have their own Wikipedia article if they are notable, this raises the question of what to do about new software. Since openBVE is new, it seems to me, that it is best described in the BVE Trainmsim article, since that is subject to which it is most likely to be considered as an alternative. If it then becomes sufficiently notable to satisfy the Wikipedia community, it could have its own article in the future. I understand the concerns made earlier about not having 2 programs in the same article. An alternative could be to rename this BVE Trainsim article as BVE Train Simulation, or something similar, which could cover both BVE Trainsim and openBVE. The article could always be split into separate articles at some time in the future.--Chris1515 (talk) 22:13, 7 May 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.