This was a great comparison data for all car simulators, it is heavily referenced in many sim communities and information on that page was up to date.
The arguments for deleting this article were that:
- it would need maintenance (yes! That's what open encyclopedia is for),
- it contains just a lot of tables (wow, who would guess that comparison might be done using tables).
Following this type of thinking, all comparison pages should be removed...
Endorse - clear consensus to delete, any other close would have been in error. Also, Deletion Review isn't Articles for Deletion round 2. PhilKnight (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, you don't get to fight your battles here again. Opinions to delete were clear and policy/guideline-based, outnumbered the predictably-weak "keep everythings", resulting i na clear consensus to delete. Nothing more to see. Tarc (talk) 16:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse any close other than Delete would have been wrong. The arguments in favour of deletion were numerous, sound and not rebutted. The article has been copied to Wikia. Hut 8.519:57, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I think the decision was plain wrong, and I do not thing my keep !vote was a "predictably weak keep-everything"--and neither was Hob it's It was an argument that AfD is not for improvement, and that articles that needed editing, even extensive editing,should be fixed and not deleted. The arguments for deletion were none of them policy based ,and should have been ignored. Too much detail is not a policy based argument, When true, it is easily remedied by editing out the excessive detail. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't see how the decision was plain wrong. There was a clear consensus to delete. And there was policy explicitly behind just about all of the delete !votes - WP:OR. The use of primary sources to compare products is unacceptable. The delete !votes that relied on OR were perfectly valid and led to the correct outcome in respect of a massive unadulterated tract of OR. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The AfD was pretty clear-cut. Deletion Review isn't for a separate attempt to get consensus that you'd agree with, but reviewing improper deletions. This is not one of those cases. EVula// talk // ☯ //05:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the outcome was wrong, but consensus was pretty clear and not outrageous. I don't think the reasons to delete were valid, but given the !vote, IAR probably creeps in here. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that if you'd like to get this userified, provide sources that substantiate the data in the table, you have a lot better chance of it being restored to mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 04:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own close, mainly because I don't think I could've really closed it any other way (and the Delete comments were right - it was a horrible mess of OR). That's not to say a viable article couldn't be written on the subject, of course. If you want it userfied, just ask. Black Kite (t)(c)08:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Overturn since the article included clear assertions of significance sufficient to survive A7. Assuming this was a recent creation, i should have been BP-PRODded rather than speedied. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. An article that has been around for 4.5 years is almost an invariably bad candidate for speedy deletion. The article bears that out. There are numerous claims to significance and importance. They are hopelessly unverified - a sign of our changes in standards over 4.5 years. But that doesn't make it A7 eligible. Send it to AfD.--Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' The deleting admin does not seem to have been asked to reconsider or been notified, so I notified him just now. (The ed. instead asked the person who placed the tag; I have notified them also) DGG ( talk ) 02:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Totally incorrect use of A7. And should be easily sourceable. No need to rewrite in user space--just add the sources. DGG ( talk ) 02:12, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]