Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BVE Trainsim

Add links
From 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 Keep. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BVE Trainsim[edit]

Does not contain references to support claim of notability. Appears to fail WP:SOFTWARE. Much of the content violates WP:V and/or WP:NOR. Andre (talk) 19:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and cleanup. I will admit I'm finding it hard to find any "notable" references to BVE, mainly because first of all, it's freeware and not a commercial project, and second because it's aimed at a rather niche market. However, BVE Trainsim is the most popular freeware Train simulator in the world. It's perhaps a bit unfair to ask to link to notability-proving websites since I'd suppose most of the railfan magazines this game has appeared in do not have websites. I'll agree the article needs be cleaned up, it's starting to read like an FAQ. --PkerUNO 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you cite some railfan magazines? That would help. Andre (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really an expert on the matter - I certainly am a railfan, but I don't buy any magazines. I've asked a few friends if they can find any articles on BVE in their magazines, but I doubt they'll reply in time for the VfD deadline. In any case, I'll comb over the List of railroad-related periodicals and see if I can find anything. --PkerUNO 00:46, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Finally, it's over...Delete per nom. - Mailer Diablo 04:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article definitely needs work, but this is one of the most popular trainsim packages in existence, and it is unquestionably the most popular freeware one. AdorableRuffian 14:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notability not established. If it really is that popular, it should be a simple matter to establish notability with references. Chondrite 21:42, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It should, but the current guidelines favour big, commercial releases. Most game magazines don't cover freeware software, and even commercial train simulator software such as Microsoft Train Simulator never got much mention in gaming magazines. There are many railfan-run websites devoted to BVE and most search engines have a separate category for BVE. Unfortunately, most railfan magazines, where this game would most certainly appear, don't have websites, thereby making this job even harder. --PkerUNO 00:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Correct. This is a definite case where the guidelines promote systemic bias. Trouble is, BVE is a pretty big fish in a small pond, and I don't think the present guidelines take account of that. Google hits are arguably very crude determinants of notability, but in this case they should at least be enough to elevate BVE above the masses of non-notable freeware games which are played by a few dozen people if any. "BVE" "train" gets 240,000 ghits; even "Boso View Express" (the rarely used full name) gets over 20,000. AdorableRuffian 20:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias does not suggest that notability guidelines should be relaxed for subjects that are perceived as underrepresented. Computer games are, if anything, a major example of systemic bias; including articles about non-notable subjects in that category only exacerbates the problem. See also:Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias open tasks#Merging overrepresented content. Google hits do not establish notability. If any of those Google hits lead to non-trivial, independent reviews in reliable sources, then they should be included in the article to help establish notability consistent with the guidelines. Short of that, arguments to keep seem to be special pleading that the subject does not need to be notable. --Chondrite 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup as per AdorableRuffian's comments. The criteria seems to exclude software that doesn't make it into printed publications yet have a high usage in a niche. Alex Sims 00:36, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — per PkerUNO and AdorableRuffian. Dionyseus 01:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, cleanup, and, if you like, have fun. The BVE is notable because it is a relatively popular game among a notable niche group (railfans). It is not just the game of a couple of dozen people. — Rickyrab | Talk 21:16, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any reliable sources that can be cited to support the claim that BVE Trainsim is popular? The problem is that BVE Trainsim does not seem to be covered in any reliable sources, and it is therefore impossible to write a proper encyclopedia article on the subject. -- Chondrite 23:25, 10 December 2006 (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/BVE_Trainsim&oldid=1069012684"