Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com


 * 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. Only the first "keep" opinion attempts to make a policy-based argument, whereas the others are about how important the game or how useful the content is, which are not adequate arguments for keeping in the face of the policy-based concerns identified by the "delete" side.  Sandstein  11:35, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-encyclopedic sales catalog of content of a video game, violating the policy WP:NOTCATALOG. Fails the notabliity guidelines that apply to all lists because there are no independent sources that have covered this extensive list of content. All the citations are brief blog posts and product overview articles that, at best, merely mention that iRacing has 'a lot of cars' that 'seem realistic'.This is one of a sprawling number of lists and articles created for the iRacing.com game which catalog the game's content. Some of those deleted include: Multiple editors have agreed unanimously that these forks from iRacing.com are not notable and violate WP:DIRECTORY. etc.
 * IDWCRR – iRacing Drivers World Championship Road Racing see Articles for deletion/IDWCRR – iRacing Drivers World Championship Road Racing
 * IRacing Sprint Cup Series 2016 see Articles for deletion/IRacing Sprint Cup Series 2016
 * IRacing NASCAR Xfinity Series
 * 2010 iDWCRR season
 * 2011 iDWCRR season
 * 2016 IRacing NASCAR Sprint Cup Series


 * I am also nominating the following related pages for deletion for the same reasons: sales catalog of game content, lack of notability established by significant coverage in independent sources, per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:GNG.
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)
 * (redirect)

It's not exactly a slam-dunk that iRacing.com itself meets Notability (video games). After you ignore the some 30 links to iRacing.com, YouTube fan videos, and press releases from iRacing's partners, you're left with a handful of capsule reviews. Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural note: I have removed the AFD tags from the redirects with tags; redirects are not in scope of AFD, but however, of their target articles are deleted, then they will be deleted per speedy deletion criterion G8. Also, I have restored 2016 Brazillian iRacing Grand Prix as an article so that it can be properly included in this discussion.  Steel1943  (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Also, in this edit, I removed a few of my strikethroughs above since I realized they were distracting. Also, anyone viewing the redirects you referenced above will be forwarded to the respective nominated article referenced above, so they will see the AFD tag either way. Tagging redirects with non-WP:RFD tags can distract and confuse readers since the redirect itself isn't being discussed, but rather its target. Steel1943  (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Given the dogged persistence of promotional editing by iRacing.com, their fans, and various SPAs, I'd like an explicit affirmation that consensus favors removing this suite of iRacing pages, including redirects. They're going to need to be salted too, no doubt. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I gotta admit, I've noticed this from time-to-time with various racing-related articles myself, so I can say that this definitely happens. Anyways, I have no opinion on this at this time. Steel1943  (talk) 18:04, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 19:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom. Ridiculous articles and lists that do not belong on Wikipedia. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP:GAMECRUFT discourages these sorts of massive in-game lists without any context or further information provided, being in articles. Exhaustive lists of participants and winners of tournaments is discouraged as well. If we don't even want them in articles, surely we don't want articles dedicated to them entirely. Wikipedia is not the place to track all this stuff.  Sergecross73   msg me  20:17, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - The main article nominated for deletion is List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com to which I am responding. The nominator has stated about the article "there are no independent sources that have covered this extensive list of content." and "All the citations are brief blog posts and product overview articles". These are not true statements. Car and Driver magazine has been published since 1955, both in print and online. It is a reliable 3rd party source per WP:RS and covers the cars in addition to iRacing in general. As stated in Notability the reference requires no original research to interpret the source, addresses the topic directly, and is more than a trivial mention, but not the entire subject of the reference. No extraordinary claims are made in the article and no extraordinary references are needed. Another reference, www.expertreviews.co.uk, is neither a blog nor a product overview. It is an article by, again, a reliable 3rd party source who examines televisions, cell phones, appliances and others. Lists are not banned from Wikipedia WP:LISTV and this lists performs the same function as the example listed, List of typefaces serves. No expansive information is added to each item in the list. It serves as an "excellent resources from which to begin exploring the subject." Cotton2 (talk) 06:28, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really address the WP:NOT and WP:GAMECRUFT concerns though, specifically WP:NOTDIRECTORY. What encyclopedic value does listing every single winner of every single race of the last seven years of the NASCAR Peak Antifreeze Series give? Once you strip that cruft out, there's little more than a paragraph left of prose present. It's better left covered at the parent article, along with the minimal sourcing you've drudged up... Sergecross73   msg me  12:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please reread my entry. I have limited my reply to one article, the nominated one, not the additions. Cotton2 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, missed that part. The WP:GAMECRUFT part still applies though. We don't have List of cars in Mario Kart or List of cars in Grand Theft Auto 5 because of that, and I believe the same would apply here. We don't do "List of 'in game item'" sections in articles, let alone these stand-alone list spinouts. Sergecross73   msg me  12:58, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Accepted. NYTimes and LATimes are specifically mentioned in WP:RS as high quality references, better than local papers due to editorial review, national scope, etc. Car and Driver is also a national publication, peer reviewed etc, if not international. I posit that an article in that publication on iRacing, and the vehicles included, makes the subject notable. Cotton2 (talk) 13:31, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Right, inherently, vehicles are going to be discussed in the context of the subject when the subject is a racing video game. I'm sure there's many reliable sources covering the vehicles of Forza 5 and Gran Turismo 5 in articles about them too. That doesn't make it a valid spinout though. This is doubly true when you see that the parent article, iRacing.com, is a mere 30k in size, and that includes formatting, making it far below the normal size for needing a split. So, it doesn't warrant a separate article, and then a number of WP:GAMECRUFT points say it really doesn't belong in the parent article itself either, which is why I'd favor a "delete" over a "merge". I'll let others voice their opinions now though.  Sergecross73   msg me  14:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete all of the above related articles per nom. Keep the game itself, but no more. It's just about notable.46.226.49.228 (talk) 09:09, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep As a simulator, I feel it is important to list what is being simulated. Drawing comparisons to games such as Gran Tourismo and Forza is not really fair. Gran Tourismo and Forza allow modifications to be made to these vehicles and offer a arcade style of play. The vehicles in iRacing are taken apart and each part is weighed individually and a extremely accurate model is built based on this information and laser scans of the vehicle/parts. I realize the arguments about this just being a video game, but the argument could easily be made that this qualifies as a vehicle simulator and not a video game. This isn't wholly irrelevant, but a separate argument to be argued at a different time. The list was moved from the main page to accommodate an edit war, and was done so in the spirit of other pages, such as: List of Game Boy games, List of Star Wars characters, List of Pokémon (52–101), etc. The list is encyclopedic in nature by assisting someone in doing research on how to simulate a certain vehicle or racing series. I realize my opinion may be bias, but I do feel it is necessary for someone with knowledge of what iRacing actually is to chime in here. MordeKyle (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I am also only defending List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com MordeKyle (talk) 20:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTHOWTO says guidance on how to simulate cars is not encyclopedic. Even if it were, List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com doesn't provide any information on how to simulate anything. It's just a list of names of cars. It is not true that iRacing disassembled and measured every car. Cars are simulated using CAD data, ordinary photographs, and laser scanning. This is typical of any sim, not extraordinary. Which parts of the cars, if any, that were scanned or weighed is unknown. It's unknown how many cars are simulated using only photos, and how many iRacing ever put their hands on. There is no independent sourcing to verify any of iRacing's claims that their modeling is more extensive or accurate than other sims. And even if it was more accurate, why does the accuracy of the modeling imply that a complete list must be made? Isn't it enough to say, wow, they modeled over 9,000 cars?The other lists you mention are travesties, and they serve as good examples of why we should not allow such unsourced content to remain; ie WP:OSE. Keeping them around leads to the creation of more nearly-unsourced lists that catalog the content product offerings without being limited to those with independent sources commenting on them, or expressing any interest in the items. The lack of third party interest in each of the entries -- or even one the entries -- on List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com is the fundamental problem. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:39, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about "how to simulate cars" nor does the article say anything about how to simulate cars. Each of these vehicles is additional content that is added to the game and has to be purchased separately, so if anything, this list should be compared to lists such as Mass Effect 3 downloadable content. Realistically, in terms of video games, each vehicle/series is its own game. I fail to see why this is suddenly such an issue when this list was stable in the main article for a really long time, and was only moved off of the main article to stop an edit war. Removing the separate list page will just result in it being added back to the main article in one way or another as it is very important to the article of iRacing. Drawing comparison to Forza and Gran Tourismo, again, isn't really fair to iRacing as games like Forza 6 has over 600 cars. Individual cars are not integral to the game itself, whereas with iRacing, the indivual cars carry a lot of weight for the simulator. MordeKyle (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * "List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com doesn't provide any information on how to simulate anything." directly refutes your statement that "WP:NOTHOWTO says guidance on how to simulate cars is not encyclopedic." If it's not there, it's not a HOWTO. Could you provide the reference to your statement that iRacing doesn't disassemble the cars it simulates? It would be an interesting addition to the article, possibly a contentious addition. Unsourced? This article is a start class article less than 1 month old has both US and international sources, reliable 3rd party sources. I'm sure the nominator knows that an article that has reliable 3rd party sources can then have references to primary sources and less (not national/international) quality sources. So your request for "even one" reference to an individual was provided prior to your request. Also, your nomination claims that "Non-encyclopedic sales catalog of content", this article does not, and never has, contained pricing and/or availability of simulation information. Cotton2 (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Each of MordeKyle's last points is refuted at Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I won't repeat (much of) that. Creating a list that doesn't meet minimum standards is a poor solution to an edit war. If someone adds more uncited list cruft back into iRacing.com, it should be removed, and disputes resolved by other means.A credible case could be made looking at Featured lists, where List of Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow and Dawn of Sorrow characters, List of The Last of Us characters, and List of Uncharted characters. They rest mostly on third party sources, and not primarily on the game publisher for the list's content. The independent sources are what drive the creation of Wikipedia content. No sources, no list.Cotton2, MordeKyle said "The list is encyclopedic in nature by assisting someone in doing research on how to simulate a certain vehicle or racing series." I said a list of car names gives no assistance in how to simulate cars, and if the list were written as a how-to for that purpose, it would not be encyclopedic. The fact that primary sources may be cited does not mean those sources establish notability, per WP:LOTSOFSOURCES and WP:LISTN. List of typefaces is a list of bluelinks, nothing like this case, and the notability of the real cars adds nothing to the notability of the simulated cars.The burden isn't on me to prove that "The vehicles in iRacing are taken apart and each part is weighed individually and a extremely accurate model is built based on this information and laser scans of the vehicle/parts." The company makes no such claim, only that they use a variety of methods to gather data. It's an irrelevant point anyway; it doesn't give us a reason to make a list even if they did take apart every single car.The only real purpose served by this list is to tout the quantity of content in the game, and to give shoppers a list of items they may buy. This article, and the others nominated, are sales catalogs, and primarily promotional in nature. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


 * MordeKyle is making the case that a reader might use the encyclopedia to find out if s/he can simulate a vehicle s/he is interested in and in a non promotional venue, Wikipedia. He is not saying anything about creating any simulator data files. Your assertion that the article is a sales catalog for the promotion of the game simply is not factual, as defined in WP:NOTCATALOG. Cotton2 (talk) 00:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * So if it's on this list, that means it can be simulated? And if it's not, then it can't? This is not a definitive list of what can and can't be simulated. And such a purpose is totally unencyclopedic anyway. The whole thing is a red herring to cover for the simple fact that third party sources have not paid much attention to the contents of this list. WP:NOTCATALOG says "An article should not include product pricing or availability information unless there is an independent source and a justified reason for the mention." This list is nothing but availability information about what you can buy in this game. Merely leaving out prices is not enough. Third party sources don't justify it. These entries need: 1) sourcing in mainstream media 2) the sources must indicate importance and 3) more than just product reviews. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know that you are using "availability information" in the correct context here. That indicates release date and location availability to me. I may be wrong, but that's how it reads to me. I do however believe that the content of a simulator is very important to an encyclopedic entry about the simulator. MordeKyle (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * No sources, no list and The fact that primary sources may be cited does not mean those sources establish notability, both true. That's why the article has reliable 3rd party sources and then primary sources. Yes, this is wikipedia's best effort to provide that information. I doubt many articles about tech developments are up to the minute. This is a list of vehicles that a reader can use to find out if his/her favorite type of race car, NASCAR, Formula 1, has been developed. Cotton2 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTCATALOG belabors this point, saying not once, but twice, that lists of products and services are not encyclopedic, and that single entries must have independent sources indicating importance and relevance. A list of iRacing cars that meet these criteria would be so short that it would easily fit in the main article. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As I read WP:LISTN each item does not need individual references, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." Emphasis mine. Referenced in the reliable 3rd part sources. Cotton2 (talk) 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue here is that we're splitting hairs when arguing "well, its different when cars are being in a typical video game versus being "simulated". I don't think that has any bearing on the various WP:NOT's its violating. Its a massive list of in-universe data, with no real out-of-universe importance. There's virtually no prose present. No content beyond barely identifying what it is, followed by a massive list. It's a crufty, unnecessary list spinout. That trumps any "its useful" type arguments. Sergecross73   msg me  12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not being able to put this information in the main article is why this was moved to this split. Having the article without having this information in it is completely pointless. You might as well delete the main article as well. And to that point, we should delete just about every article on Wikipedia as some form of fancruft or another. People write about things they are interested in, that doesn't make every article on Wikipedia bias and full of fancruft. The content in the simulator, is vital to the article that is written about the simulator. These arguments are absurd. Everyone is upset about the information being in the main article, and everyone is upset about the information being in a separate article. I get all these rules that are posted, but to be honest, there are so many different rules it wouldn't be that hard to find 5 different rules that fit my argument and 5 different rules that fit your argument, all while contradicting each other. If we cant use SIMPLE logic on Wikipedia, then I'm out and this whole thing is pointless. This information is useful to people who are interested in iRacing and other simulators and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. A place where someone can find non promotional, non bias information about a topic they are interested in or what to learn more about. This fits exactly that purpose. If the list itself is a problem, I'll change it to a different format. Cleanup is definently necessary, but outright deletion of this is just pointless. This information has to be in this article one way or another, or the entire article should be deleted as it has no real information about the simulator and is just pointless. I just find it completely insane that this information can not be included in this article... MordeKyle (talk) 19:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * What you're adding is promotional, and biased, because you're not getting it from independent reliable sources. You're taking whatever iRacing says and copying it over to Wikipedia. You keep repeating that lots of people want to find this information,[dubious] but they want to find it in a "non promotional venue". What it is that makes Wikipedia a non-promotional medium? It's our policy of relying on independent sources, and that "we don't lead, we follow". Pointless? No, that is the point. We don't take content that reputable, independent media have chosen to ignore and elevate it, give it an imprimatur of Wikipedian neutrality, when in reality it's nothing but a warmed-over ad, whitewashed to seem like an encyclopedia article. This information does not have to be in the artilce. Let go of that. If it is so vital, how come not one single independent source has listed all this "vital" information? Can't be that vital if every good source can tell the world all about iRacing without reciting the name of every single car. Be guided by what the best independent sources have to say, not what iRacing wants to say about itself. These policies are not contradictory; they all lead back to one simple, common sense idea: verifiability in 3rd party, reliable sources. You've seen the Featured List examples. If the policies seem too contradictory, then learn by example. I mean good examples, not other pages that are just as much candidates for deletion as this one. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * With your argument, everything on Wikipedia about a product is promotional. You keep talking about sources and ignoring previous comments about 3rd party sources. MordeKyle (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're saying that every Wikipedia page about a product is based primarily on the company's sources? No, that's not true. That's a blatant falsehood. Your false beliefs are the fundamental reason why your opinions are contradicted by so many other editors. Admit the truth about things like that and you won't feel like such a great injustice is occurring.Tell me again what comments about 3rd party sources I'm ignoring. I don't know what you mean. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Two previous comments made by Cotton2:
 * and
 * Every line in Wikipedia doesn't need a source. If you need a 3rd party source to be added to each vehicle, then I will add one, but that is just unnecessary. Again, if the list itself is a problem, the information can be reformatted. I'd actually prefer this myself, but I don't know that I have the experience to do it. I fear you don't understand the importance of each car being mentioned because maybe you don't know anything about simulation. This isn't a video game where every car follows the same model, just with a different skin and sound font, each of these vehicles is a "game" in and of itself. Not having this information would be like having an article on a factory and not saying what is made in the factory. If you'd like to contribute and make this page better, then by all means. Just seeing an article that needs help finding it's way and saying it should be deleted without attempting to make and improvements or offering any suggestions to make improvement is pointless. If this article NEEDS to be deleted, which I fail to see, then help fix the issues on the main page. You keep asking for the "mainstream media" to have reported on this, but that's just unlikely. CNN and FOX news are not going to ever report on something like this. Just as they wouldn't with COUNTLESS other things. This is an article about a smaller topic that is important to a smaller niche of people, which Wikipedia is just stuffed full of, and is helpful for people looking for this sort of information. Who? You tell me. Who is looking at Wikipedia? Who looks at any article about smaller topics? People who are interested in them. People who find this sort of information useful as they compare which simulator to invest into. Maybe I was to drive the McLaren MP4/4, then I should go look at Asseto Corssa. Maybe I'm really interested in the IMSA GTP cars and I find out iRacing has that, but it doesn't have the MP4/4. Go read some of the sources on why this isn't just another video game, and see that actual racing teams are using certain models of cars to get their rookie drivers up to speed before going to the track. They don't put their rookie driver in just any car, they are putting their driver in the model of the car that the rookie is going to be driving on track later on. In an F-16 simulator, wouldn't it be important to talk about the F-16? Just because multiple platforms are being simulated, doesn't make the subject of the simulation less important, nor does the availability of such simulations. As technology progresses, this sort of stuff becomes more consumer friendly, as does any other form of technology. MordeKyle (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, directories are vital. In sim racing, a directory or catalog of each car is necessary. In any endeavor, having a directory of available products/services/options/locations is vital, whether it's AKC listed dog breeders or a directory of AHA/BJCP sanctioned Beer Judges. Wikipedia is not a directory; Wikipedia is not all things to all people. Many other media serve vital purposes not served by Wikipedia. WP:NOT is all about the things that are served by vital resources other than Wikipedia.The confusion here over WP:LISTN is that while, in general every list item doesn't need a 3rd party citation, the policy at WP:NOT emphasizes, twice in #5 and #7 of WP:NOTCATALOG that products and services do need citations asserting some importance or relevance. These aren't lists of just anything; there lists of what iRacing offers for sale. They are products/services/equipment.Again: I. Don't. Have. To. Tell. You. Who. Needs. This. List. To. Exist. On. Wikipedia. The burden for that is on you. Don't make claims and then tell me it's my job to prove your claims. You said it, not me. Don't put the burden on me to prove that your assertions are true.  --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You asked who and I told you who. So. I. Don't. Know. What. That. Whole. Mess. Is. And again, citations can be added to EACH vehicle. That is not a problem. And again if the list is the issue, the format can be changed. MordeKyle (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator has made a subjective evaluation of List of vehicles simulated by iRacing.com as being a violation of NOTCATALOG #5 making the assertion that it is a sales catalog sans prices. It is so clearly, CLEARLY not against that policy. The policy is literally "article should not include product pricing or availability information" and the SPIRIT of the policy, not a price guide, comparison shopping guide or availability guide between different vendors, this is not in evidence in this article. Therefore I conclude that you are stretching the WP:NOT policy here beyond common sense, i.e., you are wikilawyering.Since the article is not a catalog that leaves NOTCATALOG #7. Again, lists are not banned in Wikipedia and this article serves a purpose as does the example in WP:LISTV and no, the lists do not have to be clones of that example. One clear purpose is to explore what options are available. I've never used iRacing but if I wanted to, I would prefer a neutral source of information like wikipedia, of course because I participate here. The article seems to be a candidate for WP:IAR for this one specific case. Cotton2 (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Here comes the ad homeniem. I guess everyone who wrote WP:GAMECRUFT was also acting in bad faith? Wikilawyers all? WP:NOTCATALOG was not written by people who don't understand plain English. The words are clear.You know, if a reader takes comfort in the belief that the items on this list were chosen by a neutral third party, they'd be deceived. This list merely parrots what iRacing says, because independent sources don't support it. The illusion of neutrality is exactly why Wikipedia has policies against exhaustive catalogs or directories of game content, products, or services, that are mere glosses of the subject's own publications. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

This is a simple list of a known thing that IS supported by 3rd party sources and does not advertise anything or promote "these over those" or anything like that. I don't see how saying, "these things are simulated by this simulator" is not neutral. And apparently the words aren't clear if you are reading from WP:NOTCATALOG where both of the points you made can be refuted. WP:GAMECRUFT is a guideline that may not even be relevant to this article. It would be very easy for me to argue that this is not a video game and is a "tool" that is used to simulate an experience in the highest detail possible. Besides any of that, guidelines are not rules. Guidelines are to guide an article, and these guidelines barely fit the subject material. MordeKyle (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the ticket. Argue that it's not a video game. What could go wrong? I'm very sorry for spending so much time replying to all this discussion. Sometimes I get drawn in and can't help myself. There are plenty of other editors besides me who can reach a consensus on this. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a little off topic, but it's been brought up as part of the fancruft stuff. As I have researched this article I have read a lot in the online media about iracing and sim racing in general. Isn't that what Wikipedia is all about? Apparently iracing is about top dog in the simulator field. Comparing it to arcade racing is like saying a Dbase search function is the same as a Google search. Both use a monitor and keyboard as the user interface, but what goes on behind the scene is worlds apart. Who says iracing is not a video game, try Wikipedia, PCAuthority, Engadget, Wired magazine, actually just about every article I've read. Yeah, but this is not really a simulator. Not like an Airbus simulator or even a train simulator, there's no hardware. Check out that Wired magazine link. At $80 thousand I'd say it even qualifies in price. Would I sit in there for 24 hours simulating a Le Mans race and pay $80k for the fun, no way! Would I pay $80k for a sailboat and sail 24 hours, you bet! To each his own... Cotton2 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm rather troubled by the comment Not being able to put this information in the main article is why this was moved to this split. - if it wasn't appropriate for the main article, why on the world would it be appropriate for a stand-alone article? Comments like this lead me to believe these arguments stem from some fundamental misunderstandings on how Wikipedia works here... Sergecross73   msg me  17:13, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The information caused an edit war based on the exact arguments that are invalid here. Again, this information is very important to the article, and was included in the main article for a VERY long time without too much issue until one or two people came along causing edit wars. Moving the information to it's own page appeased both sides of the edit war. The information can (and should) be on the main page, but it also can be on its own page. MordeKyle (talk) 19:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * These two fallacies are WP:ARTICLEAGE and WP:BHTT. The meta-fallacy WP:EVERYTHING came up earlier. Saying "there are 50 cars, and that's a lot" has been cited. Nobody has cited the importance or necessity of a roll call of naming each of the 50 cars. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:04, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have, multiple times. You can stop now. MordeKyle (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You should stop making false statements. You did not provide any citation for your claim that there is a need for listing the names of each and every car. You made an implausible claim about researching how to simulate cars with this list, but provided no evidence that it is useful for that, or that this is anything but a violation of WP:USEFUL, WP:DIRECTORY, WP:NOTHOWTO etc. No evidence that any such researcher exists or has used the list in this way. You claimed there are people who want to look at the names of the 50 cars here, rather than at iracing.com, because here it's non-promotional. No citation given for this claim. It's true you've repeated these assertions, but it's not true that you offered any evidence for them. When I asked you to provide these citations, you said it was my job to disprove your claims. You said the problem was "maybe you don't know anything about simulation", rather than your own lack of evidence for your assertions. Red herrings to distract from the fact that your assertions lack evidence. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have never said you have to disprove anything. What proof do you want, do I need to go do a straw poll of random people who may be interested in the subject? This is absurd. No evidence exists that anyone has used any article in any way. I have told you several times why this information is important to this article. You keep making up new reasons and ignoring previous statements that already contradict your new reasons. It is my job to defend this article, so I will continue to do so. You have made your case, yet seem to have way more interest in this article that just trying to police Wikipedia. You nominated the article, you made your case, and you continue to argue things that have almost no relevance to this discussion. You are arguing about something that you clearly know very little about. You have that right. Arguing about something that you have clearly done no research on, then acting like someone else's argument is out of line, is just absurd and disrespectful. Then, you say I am just trying to bring up "red herrings" to distract you from me not having proof that someone out there will find this information useful?! I have also made no false claims. I have told you numerous times that the things being simulated are important to the article about the simulator. I have been kind and tried my best to argue my point, yet you are just plain disrespectful with your snide little edit summaries and everything. I am only arguing to keep this page as continuing an edit war only harms Wikipedia. If the page is deleted, the information will just be re-added to the main page in one manner or another, as it was before, for several years. I'm done with you and your attitude, and as a relatively new Wikipedia editor, you have probably run me off from contributing to Wikipedia. I am no longer responding to this thread as you have just degraded this debate into personal attacks and accusations against myself. Good day. MordeKyle (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Uh, well, okay, still not sure I understand how something seemed innapropriate for an article is somehow valid for its own article...Especially when it's one giant violation of WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73   msg me  02:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See above explanations about gamecruft. MordeKyle (talk) 02:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - delete as per nomination. We could end up with endlessDirectory style forks which not only clutter up Wikipedia, provide no new in formation and, presumably, must make it harder to find information for people who have an interest in the topic.  Velella  Velella Talk 11:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:24, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is an officially sanctioned NASCAR eSport series, with real prize money on the line. The series champion gets crowned in the real-world NASCAR race weekend at Homestead-Miami Speedway every November.  That alone is more than enough reason to keep this as an official Wikipedia entry.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayalmo (talk • contribs) 05:21, 12 October 2016 (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.