Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corn (emulator)

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 redirect to List of video game emulators. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Corn (emulator)[edit]

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

This is a minor program without anything to assert notability. TTN (talk) 22:39, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 22:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's notable. Just because it's not used right now after its development has ended, does it not negate the fact that Corn at its time was groundbreaking – similar to UltraHLE. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 00:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia means that the subject had received multiple pieces of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources (Please see WP:IRS for info on reliable sources). Assuming that this emulator is groundbreaking it should be quite easy to find sources covering it. While It's true that the fact this is no longer in use would not make the subject non-notable the fact that no one else is suggesting that as a reason for deletion makes that moot point. All that being said I think a redirect is a good idea though if reliable sources can be found I have no objection to retaining the article.--64.229.165.126 (talk) 20:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in 1999 – before the web was as mainstream as it's today – there were lots on sources covering Corn (mostly print media). I'll find a few sources that survived that long and add them… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—This may well have been a significant step forward in emulation software, but unless there are some reliable sources documenting that the article should be deleted. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to list of video game emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
References added proving Corn’s notability. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how any of those could be considered reliable sources. It's just a bunch of emulation sites detailing minor updates and confirming that it exists. It needs information relating to its cultural impact, reception information, and the like. Those don't accomplish that at all. TTN (talk) 17:13, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All these confirm that Corn's emulation speed was groundbreaking at the time. I even added the quotes to the references. And yes, websites of emulation experts are reliable. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 17:48, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hardly call them "emulation experts", nor would I think those could be called reliable sources under normal circumstances. They're hobby websites with a focus on providing updates and downloads for emulation related programs. It's no different than a toy collector website detailing various toys or a stamp collector website listing every stamp. Those would not be reliable sources for creating articles on every single action figure or stamp that has ever existed. TTN (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Zophar’s Domain and AEP exist since the 1990s. Few websites exist such a long time. ZD is considered important enough that it has its own article.

If you are unhappy with the sparse amount of emulation-covering websites surviving 14 years, feel free to dig through your collection of old PC gaming print magazines from that time. I remember that in the wake of bleem several mainstream PC gaming magazines covered console emulators.

64.229.165.126 asked for sources proving that Corn was groundbreaking at its time and I provided several independent references backing up those previously unsourced claims. The article deals with Corn’s unprecedented emulation performance and the techniques it uses. Therefore it contains more information than just a table converted into prose form.

Could the sources be better? Yes. Are the sources so untrustworthy and the article so bad (primary sources with blatant advertising,…) to justify its deletion? No. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 19:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make them reliable sources. I'm sure there are plenty of hobby websites that have been around even longer. There may be some sort of context where they can be utilized (unlikely), but this is not one of them. All they do is catalog everything related to emulation and provide updates on them. Again, that is no different than sites collecting information on stamps, action figures, or vehicle unique mufflers. Simply having them list the topic does not mean they can be used to establish its notability, else every other hobby site could be used to do the same with everything they catalog. Emulation itself is a notable topic, and maybe a few sentences about this one could be placed into a section discussing N64 emulation. That does not mean this topic needs more than that without reliable sources to establish it as a viable topic. TTN (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they are reliable sources. As per WP:IRS at least AEP and ZD are run by an editorial staff, not a single person, therefore do not count as self-published sources, they are third-party publications, and they don’t “have a poor reputation for checking the facts”.

The notability as groundbreaking N64 emulator has been successfully established and independently verified by three entirely different sources. No flawed analogy to stamp collectors changes that (even though there are many articles about individual stamps on WP).

If you can’t read the verdict by an AEP editor because it is written in German, then I’m sorry. The Cite News template does not have a parameter for a translated quote. I’ll be happy to provide an English translation once the translated_quote parameter has been added. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 21:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doing to disagree with you that AEP may, in some circumstances, be a reliable source. However, neither AEP link on this topic is substantial enough to warrant consideration. Do you know of any articles on Corn? Lesser Cartographies (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2013 (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.