Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logitech G25 (2nd nomination)

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. (non-admin closure) —cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 15:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Logitech G25

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. A non notable product. One of thousands that have no redeeming interest in an encyclopaedia. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:55, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Leaning~~ Strong Keep - This topic ~~appears to meet/~~ passes WP:GNG per these sources (and two more in my comment below in this discussion), which appear to be independent, reliable sources with editorial integrity:

Stuff.co.nz article
ITEspresso.es article
Novinky.cz article

—Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:15, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We can use WP:GNG to justify the existence of 100s of 1000s of articles but that does not mean we should keep them. AfDs are used to shape what the community want and I, for one, want an encyclopaedia - not a product catalogue! Sure, there are products that are notable but lets keep it to those the are really notable. Ok, that means making a judgement - which is why we are here. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a print encyclopedia. Please read Wiki is not paper in entirety. Attempts to change longstanding Wikipedia guidelines and policies through separate AfD discussions will not enact any meaningful change. You should consider starting discussions on guideline and policy pages if you're in disagreement with them. Thank you for your consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:53, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience policy development has stagnated (at least for notability). It is difficult to get any new policies or guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I am "leaning" towards Northamerica1000's "leaning keep"; however, would this not be better as a merge into the Logitech article and a simple redirect? I think there are plenty of reliable and independent sources; however, I do not think it is that popular or interesting enough that people would see this as needing its own article. Just my 2 cents. --MalcomMarcomb11376 (talk) 17:03, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into the Logitech article would give undue balance to one of thousands of products that the company makes. Lets not forget that WP is an encyclopaedia and not a product catalogue. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser ^TSU 01:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename to Logitech G25 Racing Wheel, or similar. If this was a mouse or keyboard I'd vote delete, but there's a much narrower market for steering wheel controllers and I think this qualifies as both notable and encyclopedic as a result. (Alan Liefting's point above is well-taken; I don't think a merge is appropriate for the reason supplied.)Vulcan's Forge (talk) 02:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Should delete - this falls under the topic of Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_directory - this is just a product whoses existence can be verified. A few product reviews do not (in my opinion) confer notability - they are not 'independent of topic'. It looks like several other pages, eg those products found in Template:Logitech are not actually notable. Might be a good idea to list all those, or alternatively -do nothing and let the computer peripheral related cruft pile up..Oranjblud (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - How are the sources in my !vote above not independent of the topic? None of the websites in my !vote appear to associated with Logitech whatsoever. Northamerica1000^(talk) 07:50, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BIG picture comment. What happens when there are more article than what the editors can adequately maintain? It means the vandals will be able to get an upper hand and articles will go out of date. Maybe there is a practical upper limit to the number of articles that we can maintain? I could go on but this is the wrong forum. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:36, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. I found a better target for a possible merge, which I think could do with some discussion: GT Force#G25 Racing Wheel. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{(have a chat)} 10:33, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A straight redir is all that is needed. A merge would give the G25 undue balance. I am not a big fan of all this product info in WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"A merge would give the G25 undue balance." - please, explain why you believe this. WP:PRODUCT implies a Merge is the preference (the target is a separate question). As for "I am not a big fan of all this product info in WP." by that logic, all the books, games and films should also be removed huhh? Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have a read of WP:BALANCE and logical fallacy. (I mean't to say "I am not a big fan of all this sort of product info in WP." By "this sort" it should be assumed that I am referring to a subset of what can be defined as a product.) -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe Odie's comments in the first AfD are a strong argument to keep. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 22:14, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - From the comment from the previous AfD listed above by User:Exit2DOS2000, two more reliable sources have been added to the article:

Klett, Steve (December 2006). "G25 Racing Wheel." Maximum PC Magazine.
Logitech G25 Racing Wheel review | Ars Technica

These, combined with the three sources in my !vote above, equal five reliable sources comprised of significant coverage about this topic. Deletion of the article at this point would be ridiculous, and against WP:GNG. Revised my !vote above accordingly. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:30, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that WP:GNG is only a guideline. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep References (from a range of international sources) seem to satisfy WP:GNG. I don't agree that keeping this article would harm Wikipedia: pages like this tend not to be a draw for vandals, and don't need much maintenance (and in any case that isn't grounds for deletion). If you want to stop vandals you should delete Mitt Romney and One Direction. The only time this page is likely to trouble anyone is when it's AfDed. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Harm" is an interesting word in this context. I would argue that WP would better off if articles about products was limited to only those that are highly notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge How about merging all Logitech racing wheels into one article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drcooljoe (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about limiting WP articles to REALLY notable products? I would help with spam and prevent conferring a commercial advantage of one manufacturer over another. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your use of the word "really" in this context is an ambiguous weasel word that doesn't convey your notion very accurately. Perhaps consider starting a discussion on the Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) talk page. Comments at this discussion page won't change the guidelines there! Northamerica1000^(talk) 06:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Product reviews in independent sources are exactly what does best confirm notability of a product. "independent of subject" means that the subject of the article (or in this case, the manufacturer of the subject of the article) isn't the publisher or the author. Any proposed reference which is truly independent of the subject in the sense of not being about the subject or not discussing it substantially would be irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 7 September 2012 (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.