Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Formula One video games


 * 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. Czar's suggestion to repurpose the article in a "List of..." format should be discussed subsequently on the talk page. ☺ ·  Salvidrim!   ·  &#9993;  16:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Formula One video games

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Moderate notability with regards to the Fomula One articles and the F1 video games' articles are already connected through a navbox and a category, making a dedicated article which simply repeats what's already here in other namespaces redundant. Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Tvx1 17:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:54, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per page statistics, the navbox has 53 views in the past 30 days, taking into consideration that it may not count views from the box placed on other pages (I couldn't find that information of where the box is actually placed throughout Wikipedia)... while over that same period, the catagory has 526 views and this article has 4381 views. While these numbers are based off of software marked as beta, it does appear that the reader would stand to lose more accessibility by deleting the article rather than the navbox or catagory if the argument is simply that of redundancy. Twirlypen (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Also, while it lacks any inline citations whatsoever, it is heavily referenced. Poor MOS shouldn't get an article deleted on that alone. Twirlypen (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just one of the games got 31244 views in the last thirty days, while the average F1 season article had 128248. For the video game article, that's nearly eight times as much as the list of the games. So the list itself doesn't get that much attention at all. And like you self-admitted your numbers on the navbox are incorrect. Here are all the articles to transclude the navbox. Everytime these articles are viewed the navbox get at view as well. Tvx1 15:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, your example is right at the top of the current season article as a "Not to be confused with..." notation. I'd bet that game article would still have at least 95% of its traffic even if there were no F1 video game list, category, or navbox at all. Twirly Pen  ( Speak up ) 07:28, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Might not be a very good article, but it is more than a mere list and features some prose that can be the base for a good article. Zwerg Nase (talk) 10:13, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep ...for the fact F1 videogames were pretty common in the 1980s through 1990s so I can't see how this topic is of "moderate notability". Donnie Park (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because they existed, does not make them notable. There is a general guideline for that. By the way, we wouldn't be deleting this information from the wikipedia entirely. These games have their own articles. And every of this articles includes a box listing all the produced F1 video games .Tvx1 15:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. As an example of how the subject matter as a whole has got coverage see here. Polequant (talk) 12:38, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just one source does not satisfy the GNG's "significant coverage". Besides the information would not be removed from the wikipedia entirely. Tvx1 15:15, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There is nothing in the GNG about the number of sources needed (though I found that after a minute looking, so would reasonably expect to see more, oh, and after another minute see this). And I have no idea what you mean by your second sentence. Polequant (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I would say that the GNG does call for multiple sources otherwise it it would have called for coverage in a reliable source not reliable sources (notice. The plural).--174.91.187.234 (talk) 19:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It says multiple sources are generally expected. But that doesn't mean required. In any case I have given multiple sources now. Polequant (talk) 11:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge with Sim racing, page is redundant as there's nothing that doesn't already fit elsewhere. None of the Keeps have actually refuted the nomination reason.--Vaypertrail (talk) 14:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Repurpose to List of Formula One video games. Many of the keep rationales above are not based in policy or much depth. And as for whether categories, lists, templates can be redundant (as nominated)), WP:CLN says it can. I think the list is a smarter way of getting through the ugly navbox. Anyway, these are all clearly linked to F1 as a brand and once all the unsourced material is removed, the list should be sufficient. – czar   15:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't object to renaming to 'List of...' and lists can still have background information. Unsourced information shouldn't just be deleted, it should be looked at to see whether it can be sourced. Also interesting to note that the GNG says "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." Though I think I've shown notability anyway, WP:USEFUL is sometimes a reason to keep, particularly for lists. Polequant (talk) 11:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unsourced info should just be deleted. If you would like to salvage it, that's on the contributing editor or any other interested party. – czar   13:40, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.