- 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 based on the strengths of the arguments presented. Forums are not reliable sources; that sources may be found is crystal ball-gazing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Digitrax (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Unreferenced. Fails the general notability guideline. May qualify for CSD A7 as it does not indicate why the subject is important or significant. McWomble (talk) 16:00, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete no assertion of importance or significance for unreferenced article. Drawn Some (talk) 16:04, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Digitrax is a major manufacturer of DCC systems and is well known in forums. Article does need a of work though. Stepho-wrs (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability; it is not enough to simply assert that a topic is notable without substantiating that claim. Forums are self-published hence are not acceptable sources. The general notability guideline requires the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The article does not even assert the importance or significance let alone provide any references to support such a claim. Fails WP:CORP. McWomble (talk) 13:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's a book that mentions it. [1]
- Forums are not a good source for most things (especially product specs) but having questions about Digitrax on most train forums surely counts as a lot of people interested in it. Also, a web search finds a lot of train hobby shops selling it in multiple countries. This doesn't happen for non-notable products. This is easily verifiable. But remember, I'm only using forums and shops to verify notability (as in, a lot of people being exposed to the product). I wouldn't use them for product specs.
- Wrong! See WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable." McWomble (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a new rail modeler I can confirm that even I have heard of Digitrax. I rarely visit forums. I would find an article on wiki very useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.3.141 (talk) 23:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So? The threshold for notability is significant coverage in reliable sources. The article fails WP:CORP. It does not even assert the importance or significance let alone provide reliable sources to support such a claim. McWomble (talk) 10:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Have to agree with McWomble, this technology already has a generic article Digital_Command_Control. I feel if the article is allowed to remain, it will turn into a product catalog. WP:NOT. I've also noticed there already is a wiki page relating to this product, railroad modelers can go edit there. www.dccwiki.com/Digitrax.Surfing bird (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Forum postings, and "I've heard of it" attestations aren't reliable sources. However, they do appear to be a significant manufacturer of DCC for model trains. Significant enough to receive a small amount of coverage in the New York Times. Another small portion of an article in the South Florida Business Journal. Model Railroading specialty magainzes seem to have a lot more coverage. [2], [3] are a couple of examples. I suspect more substantial sources can be found in specialty model railroading publications printed on traditional paper rather than on the Internet. -- Whpq (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Refer to WP:CORP. Primary criteria - Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. That article you cite discusses the technology, and only makes passing mention of the company. Using your logic, the hobby store also mentioned would also have an Wikipedia article, there already exists a generic article for this technology.Surfing bird (talk) 05:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I am basing my keep opinion on the likelihood that more substantial sourcing can be found in specialty magazines covering model railroading. The NY Times remarks that the company is "a leading vendor of Digital Command Control equipment" which is indicative of notability, and I suspect that more substantial coverage is available in specialty magazines. -- Whpq (talk) 11:26, 20 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.