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. MBisanz ^talk 03:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SimSig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable website/software/forum. All sources are to the website. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:18, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As stated below, the above assertion is untrue.Jezhotwells (talk) 03:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Er, where? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1 "WineHQ - SimSig 2.103". Wine HQ. http://appdb.winehq.org/objectManager.php?sClass=version&iId=7495. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

2 a b c "Dazrah's SimSig page". britishrailwaysboard.co.uk. http://britishrailwaysboard.co.uk/simsig/. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

3 Raymond Keattch (18 April 2007). "SimSig Training". http://www.drivershed.com/UK-Drivers.s13.html. (Web link). Retrieved on 27 December 2008.

4 RSN Associates and Risk Solutions (February 2003), "Rail education framework for secondary schools (S1 – S2) in Scotland - Guidance for Teachers" (PDF), Development of rail safety material for teachers and schools, RSSB, pp. 103 http://www.rssb.co.uk/pdf/reports/Research/Development%20of%20rail%20safety%20material%20for%20teachers%20and%20schools.pdf

5 Marshall, Alan (September, 2006). "Dipping a toe into Signalling" (PDF). North London Society of Model Engineers Newsletter (London: NLSME) (673): 21. http://www.nlsme.co.uk/Newsletters/NLSME-September-2006.pdf. Retrieved on 27 December 2008.

6 "Signalling Simulations". District Dave. http://www.trainweb.org/districtdave/html/signalling_simulations.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

7 "Sundry Strategy Titles". TRANSPORT SIMULATION UK. http://www.transportsim.co.uk/sundrystrat.html. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

8 "The Language of Electronics - Dictionary and Research Guide". 123Explore!. http://www.123exp-technology.com/t/03881298238/. Retrieved on 2008-12-27.

9 "SimSig". Clive Feather. http://www.davros.org/rail/simsig/. Retrieved on 2008-12-26.

I have removed those referring to the SimSig website or forum. I request that fallacious and untrue assertions are removed from this debate. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • I have not yet reviewed those links (I will, but probably later), but at the time that I placed this AfD, they were not in the article. I will not remove any such assertion, as it was true at the time, and may be yet, though I don't know yet as I have not read the links. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - Keep this article Actually the external links: SimSig; The Railway Engineering Company, the suppliers of TRESIM; SimSig at www.train-sim.com; SimSig at WineHQ; SimSig at carmont.com; SimSig at trainweb.org; SimSig at britishrailwaysboard.co.uk = show mentions at five other websites not associated with the software maker, so the above assertion is not true. The article has been neutralized and expanded. The software is notable as it is the only realistic simulation of UK railway signalling available. I oppose this recommendation for deletion. Jezhotwells (talk) 10:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 08:59, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jezhotwells. Passes WP:CORP. Tevildo (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. SimSig itself is most definitely notable - you only have to read the article to see that. Jezhotwells' comment above also says much the same as I would about the notability of the subject. --Ciaran H (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I do not believe this article should be deleted. I have some concerns that part of it could be see as an advert but this should be discussed on the talk page. ZoeL (talk) 19:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — notability not established. Forum postings and links to websites are not considered reliable (secondary) sources. Nor could I find any such significant coverage thereof in a cursory Google search (no hits in gNews). MuZemike (talk) 20:22, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory seacrh of Google or Google News produces no hits for Zombie Nation (video game), so I don't really see that as a revelant argument. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from stalking on my contributions. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just because other crap exists doesn't mean an article should be kept. So MuZemike's argument has relevance. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:17, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I've cleaned up the article to try to see what's going on. The nominator is correct that the sources used in the article do not prove notability. Please note that in Wikipedia, the "External links" section of the article by definition contains links that were not used as sources for the article. If some of those links will help to establish notability, please work them into the article as sources. The text of the article makes it sound like this might be notable, so I'm not saying keep or delete at the moment. I'll willing to give the authors some time to convince me that this product is notable by providing reliable secondary sources. Pagrashtak 20:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of your concerns have been addressed. I would welcome input on the talk page.Jezhotwells (talk) 21:34, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your new sources have raised additional concerns. I've listed some on the talk page. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that I have answered them adeqautely there. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:23, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—I have to switch to delete after the discussion at the article talk page. While the article sounds like it holds the promise for notability, the sources turned up so far are personal websites, self-published material, and forum posts. It appears that we simply don't have the reliable secondary sources needed to construct an article here. If SimSig grows in popularity and begins receiving coverage in reliable secondary sources, this article can be undeleted or recreated. There may be other wikis for which this article is suitable. If so, this article can be transwikied. Pagrashtak 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I cannot believe that this article has been marked for deletion. As far as I can see there is nothing wrong with it, the links are all correct, maybe the wording maybe slightly wrong, but that can easily be changed, the pictures are accurate as well as picture descriptions, the simulations and website are made by Geoff Mayo. I say KEEP. manadude2 (talk) 21:05, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that Wikipedia has a notability guideline, and the nominator has a concern that SimSig does not meet it. It has nothing to do with incorrect links or wording, but the subject matter itself. Pagrashtak 21:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a notable simulation of UK railway signalling. I agree, however, that it would be helpful if better references can be found. Dtaylor1984 (talk) 23:12, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It may be a notable simulation of signaling, but it doesn't meet the overall WP:N guideline for Wikipedia notability. As can be seen from the, presumably, best references (i.e., those listed in the article) all the references are to personal pages and forums which are not reliable sources. I can't find anything else that is more reliable. Personally I feel it is time to look again at the standards for web sites, shareware and freeware because they are very rarely WP notable even when they are widely known in the on-line community. But an AfD isn't the place to discuss that. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- MuZemike (talk) 00:01, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- MuZemike (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The program is _notable_ because it was an amateur piece of freeware that was adopted by Railtrack to train their signalmen with, because they didn't have a simulator. If it fails WP:N, it's _solely_ because WP:RS is fifteen - nay, twenty - years behind the times. However, I agree that one AfD isn't the right place for this debate; if this article _is_ deleted, though, it might provide an incentive to change our policies... Tevildo (talk) 04:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Or it might goad people who claim that it's notable to provide reliable sources, which so far do not exist. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:17, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

This is the nub of it. In relation to the page for a quite well known video game SimCity in fact there are no working links in the references that are not fan sites or forums. This is likely as the original game is long out of production and is supported by a volunteer user community. The end implication of this is that only articles about commercial software produced by companies who can buy advertising space in major magazines and periodicals will ever have pages in Wikipedia. The key words in the quote above are How reliable a source is depends on context. Do a thousand comments made on volunteer fan sites and user forums equal one paragraph in a newspaper of repute? Jezhotwells (talk) 14:37, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of SimCity has no bearing on the discussion of this article, however [1] seems like a reliable source that isn't a fan site or a user forum. It could be argued that [2] is also reliable. As is this. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 06:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to establish what is meant by reliable sources - two of the three examples quoted by you are in fact references to later versions of the game and the NY Times article disappered off screen after a moment as I am not a registered user of that site. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Well-sourced article that shows notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well-sourced with which reliable sources? Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems notable enough to me, and following NPOV guidelines. Peridon (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • NPOV does not equal Notable. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 05:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't say that it did. I believe this to be notable and said so. I mentioned NPOV as an indicator that this wasn't spam. Peridon (talk) 20:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I wonder whether the Rail Safety and Standards Board and the North London Society of Model Engineers are considered reliable sources? Jezhotwells (talk) 21:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Disclaimer I am the original Wiki article author and the author of the software and obviously my vote would be to keep though that is of course biased. However, the fact that the RSSB mention SimSig is, IMHO, a very noteworthy source as they manage the Railway Group Standards on behalf of the industry - standards which suppliers have to meet to deliver safety-critical products to Network Rail. One request - please keep this RfD open for longer than the standard 5-7 days due to the holiday season. Many official outlets do not re-open until January 5th and I am unable to get the official sources required until at least then. GeoffM (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.255.199 (talk) Apologies for not being logged in.[reply]
• Delete - A particular company using a particular piece of software does not make that software notable. It's possible that the "forthcoming 2nd edition of Railway Operation and Control" will confer some notability, if the coverage is significant. But we're not going to know that until it is published. In the meantime, SimSig might be briefly mentioned if TRESIM/RailTrack training is significant enough to be written about. Marasmusine (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and the recommendation in a report of the use of SimSig in schools by the body charged with rail safety in the UK (RSSB)? I would say that confirms notability. As does the reference from the North London Society of Model Engineers. Jezhotwells (talk) 21:05, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would consider that enough to have this software mentioned in the RSSB article. To me, there doesn't seem to be enough significant commentry from sources outside the industry. Marasmusine (talk) 13:13, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Disclaimer author here again. RSSB to the UK is similar to the FRA is the US. Those in the railway industry would know the considerable significance of that link.

• Disclaimer author yet again. Do either of these two facts indicate any notability? (a) The SimSig website contains its own Wiki which contains a large number of articles on terminology specific to railways which is not listed in Wikipedia articles; (b) Direct references to simsig.co.uk by forums, links, references, recommendations, and otherwise total over 2000 in Google. Whilst (b) are not notable references, surely the sheer number of them count (sorry!) for something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.255.199 (talk) 22:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:GOOGLEHITS. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 02:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, notability is separate from popularity. One of the reasons we have a notability guideline is to ensure that we have the raw materials (reliable secondary sources) we need to construct an article. The number of unsuitable sources have no relevance. If you hired a carpenter to build a house, but provided playing cards instead of lumber, the carpenter would refuse. Having thousands or even millions of playing cards wouldn't change things in the slightest—that type of material just isn't any good for making a house. It's the same thing here, we simply can't build an article out of unreliable sources no matter how many such sources can be found. Pagrashtak 03:11, 30 December 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.