Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech G25


 * 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. There is no consensus about the sufficiency of the sourcing or whether WP:PRODUCT would prohibit the existence of this article. Mkativerata (talk) 05:51, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Logitech G25

 * – ( View AfD View log )


 * Delete. Non-notable product. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:15, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - a WP:BEFORE search for reliable sources will turn up plenty of usable coverage. This (and the G27) are extremely high profile wheels for the PlayStation 2/3 platforms and have strong and direct ties to Gran Turismo 4 and Gran Turismo 5. --Teancum (talk) 12:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources does not necessarily indicate sufficient notability for an article. See also WP:PRODUCT. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I found three strong reviews: Maximum PC, Ars Technica, About.com. The Ars Technica is really good, the Maximum PC is only a half-page box review, but the About.com one is written by a NASCAR author and the head of About.com's NASCAR area. I also found Stuff.co.nz and AtomicGamer.com, but I can't verify their reliability. I was going to say delete until I found the About.com review. I think that with the three posted we can say the product is notable. I would also bet there are multiple reviews in printed enthusiast computer magazines as well. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC) *EDIT* I think it's also worth noting that the G25 Wheel has been used in dozens of scientific studies to test racing simulation environments. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that enough to be notable? I don't reckon it is. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Addressing the question I also found Stuff.co.nz [...], but I can't verify their reliability. Stuff.co.nz is my local paper is absolutely reliable for national news and coverage (probably the best national politics in the country). The technology coverage is medium poor to very poor (the print papers in the stable use stores purchased on the international market I believe). This particular article is credited to Gameplanet.co.nz which doesn't seem like a WP:RS to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you explain how it fails the GNG? The only argument to be made at this point would be regarding the coverage in the sources or that the number of sources in insufficient despite the presumption of notability. Strictly speaking, it does not fail the GNG because it has "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Odie5533 (talk) 14:11, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * GNG allows virtually any topic to have an article since it is merely needs to have something written about the topic. That is why I think all of the individual notability guidelines were developed. WP is not a repository of everything so we need to determine what product article we ant to keep. Since products often have reviews WP could potentially have 100s of 1000s of product articles. So, as we do with bio articles, book articles etc we set some sort of limit to what we do include in WP. WP:PRODUCT gives a little bit of an idea as to what we should do with product articles but I want to see the notability bar set quite high so we get truly notable products such as the iPad and the Ford Cortina for example.
 * Actually the WP:GNG doesn't allow virtually any topic to have an article since it is merely needs to have something written about the topic. The WP:GNG requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject which can be quite a high bar. The problem is that situations like this we disagree about what counts as significant coverage which is where we have WP:PRODUCT. WP:PRODUCT says If a company is notable, information on its products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself, unless the company article is so large that this would make the article unwieldy. I'm seriously thinking of changing my vote into Logitech Driving Force GT and Logitech G27 at something like Logitech electronic steering wheels.  Stuartyeates (talk) 08:35, 9 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Merge relevant info into Logitech 'G' series article (I volunteer) - I read one policy, WP:PRODUCT, do I need to read any others? It seems crystal-clear to me from that. As much as I love mine, and I've enjoyed my G25 quite a lot, WP is not the place for this article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 10:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is at least one policy you should read before participating in deletion discussions: WP:N. Particularly the WP:GNG part. The references from About.com and Ars Technica are significant coverage of the subject and are multiple in that there are two. You could make other arguments, such as two is not enough in this case, or that the subject is not notable for some other reason. But I do not see how WP:PRODUCT defines this product as non-notable. Please explain it if you are citing it. I honestly can not tell what part of WP:PRODUCT you are referring to here as I've read the policy many times. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Reply you directed my attention to two product reviews and described them as "significant coverage". They are not. They are ordinary reviews about a niche gaming accessory, in this specific case gaming wheel that happened to be Logitech's product line for a short time before they quickly rolled out the G27. WP:GNG is not intended to give notability to products simply because reviews exist. And so given that I reject notability WP:PRODUCT seems to be quite obvious: don't necessarily make a article for every vacuum cleaner. As for being used in "scientific studies" that is another invalid attempt to generate notability for this product. If my Thrustmaster HOTAS is used as an off-the-shelf component for Predators, put that in the Predator article. Next. LoveUxoxo (talk) 13:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are misinterpreting what significant coverage means. Curious though, what exactly would you consider significant coverage enough to meet WP:N? --Odie5533 (talk) 13:58, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply this article does quite nicely. Best of luck finding something like that for the G25, which, off the top of my head I'd guess sold around a max of 10,000 units and so didn't ever generate any coverage like that. As for another editor's comment that the G25 has "strong and direct" ties to Gran Turismo 5, in non-hyperbolese it's a "supported peripheral". It isn't mentioned as such, by name, on the GT5 box, since that games supports so many other peripheral devices. In fact when you go into "Settings" > "Steering Wheels" and look at all the presets Sony provided for various models of steering wheels (mostly Logitech's), they don't have one for the G25 (that is my "gamer" argument for a reality check). Any basic information about the G25 should be in the Logitech Logitech 'G' series article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 00:53, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So if I understand correctly, you would prefer the source analyze the subject in a more historical or big perspective than a simple analysis of the device's merit? I can definitely understand that, and it's a good argument. It's true we don't know anything about the device's development, or its historical impact. But we do know the G27 was made as an improvement. Whether or not this is enough to pass the GNG I suppose falls to consensus to decide. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think something needs to be found for this product "stand out" in multiple sources as (especially) selling well, innovative, copied, influential, a rip-off, whatever. When it isn't revolutionary, but evolutionary, one of a series of incrementally better models, I think it should be simply listed in the company page or a page, say, on Logitech's 'G' series. OMG! Don't click on that link. That whole page leads to a bunch of articles on each individual model of Logitech's gaming mice. I'd rather have the G25 article (its certainly more actual hardware) than any of those mice ones. Yes, all those should be deleted as well. The problem is occurring on the G series page; instead of being a list of links, that's the page to have (very) brief descriptions of the models:
 * Logitech G19, includes color 320x240 LCD display, Can change color and has a USB 2.0 port
 * Something like that but a bit more detailed (and with a reference), and where "Logitech G19" isn't a bluelink that leads to an article. LoveUxoxo (talk) 04:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * If you exclude reviews, then probably 50% of the video game articles we have should be deleted. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite possibly, and possibly appropriately. Modern Warfare 2 obviously is notable (best-selling, critical praise), though that article could use a trim with a chainsaw. But Colin McRae: Dirt? I don't think so (and I've owned both). The info in the Colin McRae: Dirt article should be condensed and put in the article about the Colin McRae series of games (if you got a franchise series that is released over a decade on multiple platforms I think notability is established). The fact that Colin McRae died right after release and it was on somebody's list of top-52 games that year doesn't cut it. Otherwise I think it violates the non-existent policy of, after I click on the link, WP:YOUJUSTWASTED5SECONDSOFMYLIFE. LoveUxoxo (talk) 06:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. Please can we develop a notability guideline for products to make these AfDs easier. As an encyclopaedia WP does not need articles on random consumer products that get a bit of a mention and are of a greater interest to WP editors than that of our readers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:10, 13 October 2011 (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.