Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARCA Sim Racing

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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. Nakon 04:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA Sim Racing

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

Contested PROD. Racing game under development whose notability is not established. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth-timed 22:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. SCAM. No reliable secondary sources. Reads like an ad. Release Date always pushed back. Especially now they have your money from preorders. With Comments like this comming from the guys who are creating the game, really shows how unprofessinal they really are.

"Bear with us as we are doing this for you...not to steal your money like 2003 and NSR did with a sim that drives nothing at all like a real cup car does."

--ElliottFan9 (talk) 11:30, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Biased account. Please read all the comments before posting because your comment was already addressed: "It doesn't reads like an ad. It reads like any other non released game would. The vocabulary used is clearly informational. Not self-promoting (i.e. "this is an awesome game") or comparative (i.e. "ASR is better than this game")." Also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball:
WP: Crystal Ball. Please remove all speculation and personal bias you have with the game. Unless you can effectively alter your comment, your notion will not be taken seriously. Also, the Michael McDowell NRT and SRT are third party resources that satisfy the requirements--LizardPariah (talk) 19:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
"Pre-ordering is currently available. Sim Factory will host a lottery where a winner will be drawn from a list of people who pre-ordered the game. The winner of the lottery will receive a Logitech G25 steering wheel combo cockpit package worth around $2599.00" That's an ad like it or not. My opinion was unbiased and who are you to tell people what to write?ElliottFan9 (talk) 23:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Those who pre-purchased via this method received a 10% discount on the purchase and were able to play in the Team Fortress 2 beta starting on Monday, September 17, 2007." That was directly taken from the
Orange Box does. "Release Date always pushed back. Especially now they have your money from preorders. With Comments like this comming from the guys who are creating the game, really shows how unprofessinal they really are." That is blatantly biased and opinion orientated. Unless you yourself are a developer of the game, that statement above will be rendered as a biased account. And addressing that comment directly. Let me give you a case study: the game Huxley was delayed multiple times (to a total of 2 years) and is still delayed. But that doesn't make Huxley any less worthy of an article than Halo does it. You also called ASR a "scam" besides the fact that the only support you have offered to that statement is: "it's delayed and the devs seem unprofessional". Just because a game is delayed doesn't mean it's a scam. Jumpgate Evolution, Huxley and Perfect World are wonderful examples. I'm not telling you what to write. You can write whatever you want. I'm asking you to give a fair vote based on facts rather than whatever preconceived notions you many have about the game or its developers.--LizardPariah (talk) 23:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete this article, the game is currently being "worked on" and will never be released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flamingtable (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you are a developer yourself you CANNOT say that. This is only speculation. Also, Huxley is also heavily delayed (and STILL delayed) but it has an article. Just because a game is in development doesn't mean it doesn't deserve an article. There are millions of articles with games that are in development--LizardPariah (talk) 16:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming. Complaint filed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TSF Zippy (talk • contribs) 13:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, as notability is established by the sources provided. I'd like to see some broader sources, maybe some outside of the ARCA community, but the article is good for now. I'm sure more will come out as the release approaches. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources that are outside of the ARCA community. Like the SRT and NRT Servers sources.--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is established through the interview with Michael McDowell who is completely unrelated to the project and is an professional ARCA racecar driver. It is also established in the Sim Racing Tonight. Both sources satisfy the reliable third party requirements.--LizardPariah (talk) 05:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"It is also established in the Sim Racing Tonight" Michael McDowell is no where to be found on that site.ElliottFan9 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is two separate sources. Since these two third party resources are obviously unrelated (or else they would not be called "reliable third party resources") it would be logical that both Michael McDowell or Sim Racing Tonight will not reference each other--LizardPariah (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable, unreleased game. Reads like an ad. Pburka (talk) 04:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't reads like an ad. It reads like any other non released game would. The vocabulary used is clearly informational. Not self-promoting (i.e. "this is an awesome game") or comparative (i.e. "ASR is better than this game").--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. There aren't many notable third party resources, but that doesn't mean the article's notability isn't established. Most of the information is from the main site, yes, but there's 2 that is are from third party resources, which qualifies the article as notable.--66.91.35.124 (talk) 05:49, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added another reliable third party resource. Dale Earnhardt Jr.'s interview on the software. That's THREE reliable third party resources that establishes the article as notable.--LizardPariah (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see
WP:V. There are still no reliable secondary sources in this article. --SmashvilleBONK! 19:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
How are the other sources not reliable? The NRT Server source and the two professional racecar interview should satisfy the criteria. Anyway, SpeedTV is a reliable third party source with a good strong reputation: http://video.aol.com/video-detail/arca-sim-racing-featured-on-speedtv/4043855253. I'm adding this now, this should prove the article's notability if the other three doesn't.--LizardPariah (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing verifiability with notability. These sources indicate that the game really is in production. They don't provide any indication of its notability. Unpublished games need to meet a very high standard to be considered notable. Duke Nukem Forever is notable -- it's received tons of press despite the very real possibility that it will never actually ship. This game just isn't notable -- yet. Once the game is published and there are some reviews, etc., the article will be welcomed back. Pburka (talk) 03:52, 23 January 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/ARCA_Sim_Racing&oldid=1069977918"