Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precision Manuals Development Group
- 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 no consensus although given Wikipedia's noted strength on IT articles, it's likely here to stay and helpfully so. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Precision Manuals Development Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This article fails to establish notability (WP:CORP) as it is not the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources that are be reliable, and independent of the subject (flightsim software reviews are not independent of the subject). The subject is not covered in articles or books. Products of the company have been covered in commercial reviews only. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. Icemotoboy (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 00:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - forum posts and some mentions, but no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 01:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hold on. "Independent" means that there are no inappropriate ties between the reviewer and the company/game. A flight sim magazine doing a review of a flight sim game is perfectly independent unless the magazine is owned by the same company that made the game. I believe the nom is referring to the list of reviews/awards on the company page.[1] Please have a look at these to decide if they are
reliable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - the trade-related mentions are absolutely relevant. I don't see how their having commercial reviews only has anything to do with notability. Would it help if I as a user wrote a non-commercial review? Tim (talk) 04:27, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not saying that articles on the company's products be deleted, I was suggesting that the company itself is not notable as no reviews have been done on the company. The reviews are done on the products, not the company itself. Until a reference appears anywhere dealing with the company itself, I feel that this article should not be included on wikipedia. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The majority of the article contains original research or information that is contained nowhere in any of the reviews. The entire History section is a good example of this, including a statement that the company recently updated their website. If I were to edit the article such that it fitted with information available in the reviews, it would simply be a stub saying that the company exists. However the company simply having (or not having) a product does not make it notable or not notable, that notability should be established in an independent article/book/source on the company itself.Icemotoboy (talk) 04:42, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I was not saying that articles on the company's products be deleted, I was suggesting that the company itself is not notable as no reviews have been done on the company. The reviews are done on the products, not the company itself. Until a reference appears anywhere dealing with the company itself, I feel that this article should not be included on wikipedia. Icemotoboy (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepAbstain Though I understand the rationale it's common practice to create software developer articles and either use them as navigational lists or to act as a combined article for their software. A glance at the company's accolade page shows multiple reviews from specialist websites and half a dozen reviews from two separate magazines - all of these combined demonstrate ample notability for an article on the combined products. An interview is often as good a secondary source as you can get for a development house, and in this case there is one in the external links - this can be used to give some info about the company itself, then their development history and reception can be hammered from multiple reviews - which offers notability and neutrality above and beyond a stub just about the company itself. Combined articles like that are better weighed with WP:N rather than WP:CORP, and I believe this one's fine and has capacity for expansion and improvement. Someoneanother 06:21, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Comment. For better or worse, many of the sites that have these reviews themselves have had questions regarding their notability asked, resulting in the deletion of the Flightsim.com and Avsim.com website articles to name but a few. These sites were clearly deemed non-notable, therefore questions should be asked of the notability of their content as supporting notability of minor products released for Flight Simulator. Reviews on these sites would not appear to meet notability guidelines, therefore I think their value as the only references on an article about their origin company, is not high. Icemotoboy (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and reliability are separate things though. In terms of these specialist sites gaining notability of their own, who would cover them in the significant detail needed for an article of their own, apart from other specialist sites/publications? Why would they want to cover a rival in detail? That's why so many specialists are not notable. To each their own, but I'm of the opinion that specialist sites who are longstanding and attempt to cover their subjects properly should be given at least some weight in terms of reliability. To do otherwise is to ask 'more reliable sources' to cover something that is not within their remit, in an area which is hardly as contentious as the theory of evolution or global warming. Ignoring the websites completely, there are multiple reviews in the two magazines. Someoneanother 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a valid point, the websites are certainly very useful. My personal opinion of Flightsim.com is that it is a very notable site in its own right. However, I began reviewing the PMDG entry in April 2008 which is when I tagged it, and since then I haven't found a single reference to it outside of a forum post or basic website review. We have been having problems with large number of "addon" articles, and I think that some of the more notable ones should perhaps be merged together into a "flightsim addons" article, or into the Flightsim/MSFS article. The issue I have is not that the PMDG does not exist, and not that it has produced good addons, but that this is not a notable subject for wikipedia to contain. Wikipedia should indeed record the phenomenon of addon development in the Flightsim community, but I do not think it is appropriate to record development groups without any coverage outside of its own community. It only takes a cursory read of the article (particulary the history section) to see what it covers, recording what the team are working on, who is on the team, and that they've "recently (sic)" updated their website. None of this is notable, and the majority of it is not verifable either. The reviews only serve to record that the PMDG exists, and that they have released products. How do they assert that the PMDG is notable in its own right, as part of a worldwide encyclopedia? Icemotoboy (talk) 11:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and reliability are separate things though. In terms of these specialist sites gaining notability of their own, who would cover them in the significant detail needed for an article of their own, apart from other specialist sites/publications? Why would they want to cover a rival in detail? That's why so many specialists are not notable. To each their own, but I'm of the opinion that specialist sites who are longstanding and attempt to cover their subjects properly should be given at least some weight in terms of reliability. To do otherwise is to ask 'more reliable sources' to cover something that is not within their remit, in an area which is hardly as contentious as the theory of evolution or global warming. Ignoring the websites completely, there are multiple reviews in the two magazines. Someoneanother 10:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. For better or worse, many of the sites that have these reviews themselves have had questions regarding their notability asked, resulting in the deletion of the Flightsim.com and Avsim.com website articles to name but a few. These sites were clearly deemed non-notable, therefore questions should be asked of the notability of their content as supporting notability of minor products released for Flight Simulator. Reviews on these sites would not appear to meet notability guidelines, therefore I think their value as the only references on an article about their origin company, is not high. Icemotoboy (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The case for keeping was weak, on further reflection it's too weak to support, particularly since you've spent time trying to rectify the problems. However, I would have liked to spend more time looking at the sources before switching to delete, time I haven't got ATM, hence abstaining. Someoneanother 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're right, this is not a clearcut AfD - from my perspective its a weak delete or keep. I suppose, in reflection, wikipedia err's on the side of caution and that will no doubt be taken into account during Admin consideration. However as you noted, this is something I have been investigating since April 08. As per my comment below, I was initially quite convinced this was a straightforward AfD but now I'm not so sure. Hopefully we can get some more commentary from others in this debate and achieve a clear consensus. Icemotoboy (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The case for keeping was weak, on further reflection it's too weak to support, particularly since you've spent time trying to rectify the problems. However, I would have liked to spend more time looking at the sources before switching to delete, time I haven't got ATM, hence abstaining. Someoneanother 13:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In a curious twist of fate, I have found my first reference for PMDG in print, while researching controversy for the Flight simulator article, the article states "Precision Manuals Development Group founder Robert Randazzo, who is also an airline pilot, declined to be interviewed for this story". I still stand by my nomination for deletion, as I keen to see the consensus and requirements for notabilty and verifability for such flight simulation articles. Their inclusion in the article would appear to demonstrate that PMDG was considered significant enough to be approached for comment in that story, above other options. Icemotoboy (talk) 11:58, 25 June 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.