Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCE Ultra
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FCE Ultra[edit]
No assertions of notability, fan-made project of no apparant significance, possible advertising. The Kinslayer 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The intention is to withdraw this AfD due to notability being established. In the meantime, please vote to keep it. The Kinslayer 21:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. The Kinslayer 13:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable open source emulator. It has 78,700 Google hits, and version 0.98.12 has been downloaded 39,570 times from Sourceforge. Way more notable than BasicNES, NEStron, FCEUXD, FakeNES, iNES, It Might Be NES, NESCafe and NEStra. Mushroom (Talk) 13:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I better get to work tagging them for deletion then. The Kinslayer 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could, y'know, try to improve the articles instead of just deleting them all. - Lex 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What's so notable about them? They just look like ads for people trying to get people interested in their emulators. The Kinslayer 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's just where our editing philosophies differ. I see an article like iNES (NES emulator) and think: "This is a poor article. How can I make it better?" While I'm guessing that you would see an article like that and think: "This is a poor article. It doesn't belong here." So your complaint of it being just an ad could be solved by working with the article a little bit to make it not be an ad. - Lex 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How much perfume can you pour onto a turd before it stops smelling like a turd? Seriously though, we have no legitimate sources here. Sourceforge falls under WP:SOFTWARE's listings on software download sites, which discounts it as a verifiable source. After that, you have the LiveJournal page of the current maintainer, (primary source,) and a link to a fork of the project that is barely at Alpha stage. --Roninbk t c e # 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [[WP:SOFTWARE] is proposed policy. Not official. Though I agree that there's not much you can do with this article. But it would be nice to try before AfDing it. - Lex 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFTWARE is proposed (which technically shouldn't matter since it's often applied anyway), but WP:V isn't, and a blog article from a primary source is nowhere close to WP:V. Especially with No. 3 on the list there: 3. The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it. ColourBurst 06:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SOFTWARE like most notability tests, is the de facto standard that most Wikipedia editors, (including admins who decide AfD's,) use to determine whether or not something passes WP:V. There are very few articles that pass WP:V but fail the notability tests. This is not one of those articles. --Roninbk t c e # 16:11, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- [[WP:SOFTWARE] is proposed policy. Not official. Though I agree that there's not much you can do with this article. But it would be nice to try before AfDing it. - Lex 03:53, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How much perfume can you pour onto a turd before it stops smelling like a turd? Seriously though, we have no legitimate sources here. Sourceforge falls under WP:SOFTWARE's listings on software download sites, which discounts it as a verifiable source. After that, you have the LiveJournal page of the current maintainer, (primary source,) and a link to a fork of the project that is barely at Alpha stage. --Roninbk t c e # 01:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it's just where our editing philosophies differ. I see an article like iNES (NES emulator) and think: "This is a poor article. How can I make it better?" While I'm guessing that you would see an article like that and think: "This is a poor article. It doesn't belong here." So your complaint of it being just an ad could be solved by working with the article a little bit to make it not be an ad. - Lex 18:00, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? What's so notable about them? They just look like ads for people trying to get people interested in their emulators. The Kinslayer 17:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could, y'know, try to improve the articles instead of just deleting them all. - Lex 16:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Guess I better get to work tagging them for deletion then. The Kinslayer 13:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's no less notable than any of the other console emulators, and it doesn't read like heavy advertisement to me. At most a little clean-up. FrozenPurpleCube 17:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Clean This AFD is about FCEU...which is notible as far as NES emulators go. This is in fact the whole reason AFDs exist, and furthurmore, in cases like this an article could get remade into something that DOES seem, well, noteworthly. I do agree most if not all of the others listed above aren't, however...not that such should have any bearing on THIS article. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 18:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Notability isn't subjective. It's also not relative (Microsoft doesn't make all software developers, or even OS developers, notable). Even though I've definitely heard of FCEU, how does it meet WP:SOFTWARE? Of the sources in the article, I see 1 blog, 1 forum, and a site that doesn't really explain anything in the article. That's a terrible collection of sources. It's annoying to me that people are ignoring WP:V because WP:ILIKEIT. ColourBurst 20:49, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable among NES emulators. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]Changing my vote to neutral.It seems to have a lot of name-recognition among the emulation community, and its source code is the basis of a number of projects. However, digging through Google didn't come up with any decent reliable sources among the several thousand hits. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V and nn. Notability isn't relative. You can't, for example, say "I'm easily the most notable person in my family, so where is my article?" and have anyone take you at all seriously. You either are notable or you aren't, and no emulators are. Recury 20:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None? So you'd vote to delete MAME too? Or Bleem? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, I don't know. Maybe. People appear to have written about MAME and Bleem was released commercially, so at least there are cases to be made there. Nothing like that here though. Recury 20:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know. MAME has no sources (the two inline citations are of Connectix v Sony and Orphan Patents which only have peripheral connections to MAME. It would be nice to see if MAME actually has third-party sources written about it. Bleem has 1 dubious source. ColourBurst 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment None? So you'd vote to delete MAME too? Or Bleem? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 20:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment you know, considering that there are over a half a dozen NES emulators in the catergory, the same for SNES, Sega Genesis, N64, there might be a need for a higher-level discussion of this first. See also console emulator . FrozenPurpleCube 21:26, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - notable NES emulator, often preferred among speedrunners [1]. --FlyingPenguins 00:22, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: no compelling reason to delete stated. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 02:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Here's your reason Cyberskull: Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." It also fails WP:Notability on 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.'The Kinslayer 09:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And I assert WP:V is a cleanup criterion first, and a deletion criterion next, only to be applied when there's absolutely no question there's no reliable sources out there and even the program itself was written and documented by an unreliable madman. Barring damning proof to the contrary, the project itself qualifies as a source for the program's features. My sources, below, say FCE Ultra has demonstrable notability. Therefore, the whole thing doesn't preclude a stub that says basic information about the program. Because if you're unwilling to consider the subject a reliable source for certain kinds of assertions, you're in gobloads of hot water with bazillions of articles. In that case, we might as well wipe the Wikipedia database and start rebuilding it with a brave new policy "every character must have a source, or else". --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- All open source projects are "fan projects". Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Response Here's your reason Cyberskull: Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." It also fails WP:Notability on 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article without straying into original research.'The Kinslayer 09:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep a well-known NES emulator with long history, included in Debian (and probably other dists as well) and has debian popcon rank of #8593 out of 60003 (package fceu) which is actually pretty good as it beats several other popular packages. Like this insignificant one. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you feel it's insignifcant, make an AfD discussion. I don't judge articles in relation to other ones, I judge the article on it's own worthiness. Saying 'if X has an article than this should have one' is a bad precedent to set. The Kinslayer 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ::long blank stare:: And interpreting one's purely hypothetical reductio ad absurdum argument as an exhortation to delete articles is also not very productive. Okay, let's recap my argument: "The subject fulfills criteria set forth by WP:SOFTWARE by being 'included in a major operating system distribution such as Debian, Fedora Core or FreeBSD, and the maintainer of the distribution is independent from the software developer'." There. Better? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, #8593 is awesome. So do you have any sources we can use to actually write a verifiable article on it? Recury 18:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since people started throwing the Books around: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves..." -WP:RS --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot this bit: 'relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation' I'm substituing person for program here, but there is still the bone of contention. The Kinslayer 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because law-book-throwing is the lowest form of comedy and everyone's having jolly good time reading this in, oh, 10 years, I'd like to remind that you forgot this bit: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". Consider the implications of the logical reverse of that argument. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show me the bit where it says the reverse also applies, I will. (And FYI, it's sarcasm your thinking of.)The Kinslayer 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* "Non-exceptional claims do not require exceptional evidence." As in "If the website says the software runs on Linux, and you can easily take the source code and compile it on Linux, finding a peer-reviewed professor to tell you that it runs on Linux is a tad bit overkill." And no, I absolutely was not thinking of sarcasm, because discussions like this prove that maxim absolutely wrong. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm beginning to think we might have our wires crossed here. The issue was that there is no evidence to support any claim that this should have an srticle, no download numbers, no reviews (admittedly they are hard to find for emulators) no interviews etc. Only links to the site, forum and another site that seems to be an official one. I certainly wasn't questioning anything to do with the actual details of the emulator. The Kinslayer 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, wires-crossitude is apparent, so let's all calm down. My apologies for everyone involved, it's been rough lately. Outdenting a bit, see below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though this seems to have settled a bit, I wanted to interject a something that might be enlightening to those who are sitting on the sidelines. (It's a bit of an expansion of what wwwwolf is getting at below, too.) There are two different measures that care about sources: notability and verifiability. Interestingly, they treat sources in different, but overlapping ways. When notability is caring about sources, it wants multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This is different from verifiability's requirements, which are they they are reliable and support the assertion in question. What's interesting is that a source that satisfies V can be one that doesn't satisfy NN (say, if it's reliable but trivial), and one that satisfies NN can be one that doesn't satisfy V (say, if it's major, independent, there are more than one, but it's contains nothing useful to the encyclopedia).
In this case, sources are irrelevant to notability because of the "included in a major distribution such as Debian" clause of WP:WEB. Thus, the fact that the website of FCE Ultra is not independent isn't an issue, since only NN cares about independence in this way. (Aside, V cares about independence, but for reasons unrelated to this discussion.) What results is a situation where a source can be both "bad" and "good" in an AfD, depending on what outstanding issues need to be satisfied. Specifically, a source can be useless to establish notability, but can be relevant to establish verifiability. It can be the case that no independent, multiple, non-trivial sources exist on a subject but the subject passes some other notability criteria, at which point these otherwise "inadequate" sources actually are enough to prevent an article's deletion on grounds of "unverifiability", because they make the subject verifiable.
I hope this has been interesting (and accurate? let me know otherwise), despite it being a long tangent. I've tripped over this subtle difference myself in the past. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:23, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even though this seems to have settled a bit, I wanted to interject a something that might be enlightening to those who are sitting on the sidelines. (It's a bit of an expansion of what wwwwolf is getting at below, too.) There are two different measures that care about sources: notability and verifiability. Interestingly, they treat sources in different, but overlapping ways. When notability is caring about sources, it wants multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. This is different from verifiability's requirements, which are they they are reliable and support the assertion in question. What's interesting is that a source that satisfies V can be one that doesn't satisfy NN (say, if it's reliable but trivial), and one that satisfies NN can be one that doesn't satisfy V (say, if it's major, independent, there are more than one, but it's contains nothing useful to the encyclopedia).
- Okay, wires-crossitude is apparent, so let's all calm down. My apologies for everyone involved, it's been rough lately. Outdenting a bit, see below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm beginning to think we might have our wires crossed here. The issue was that there is no evidence to support any claim that this should have an srticle, no download numbers, no reviews (admittedly they are hard to find for emulators) no interviews etc. Only links to the site, forum and another site that seems to be an official one. I certainly wasn't questioning anything to do with the actual details of the emulator. The Kinslayer 18:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- *sigh* "Non-exceptional claims do not require exceptional evidence." As in "If the website says the software runs on Linux, and you can easily take the source code and compile it on Linux, finding a peer-reviewed professor to tell you that it runs on Linux is a tad bit overkill." And no, I absolutely was not thinking of sarcasm, because discussions like this prove that maxim absolutely wrong. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can show me the bit where it says the reverse also applies, I will. (And FYI, it's sarcasm your thinking of.)The Kinslayer 18:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Because law-book-throwing is the lowest form of comedy and everyone's having jolly good time reading this in, oh, 10 years, I'd like to remind that you forgot this bit: "Exceptional claims require exceptional evidence". Consider the implications of the logical reverse of that argument. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:42, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You forgot this bit: 'relevant to the person's notability, or, if the material is self-published by a group or organisation, relevant to the notability of that group or organisation' I'm substituing person for program here, but there is still the bone of contention. The Kinslayer 18:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Since people started throwing the Books around: "Material from self-published sources, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about themselves in articles about themselves..." -WP:RS --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Let me recap: Deletion nomination questions the notability of the software. WP:SOFTWARE says inclusion is warranted if it's included in a (e.g.) Linux distro, and is (NB.) among the most popular packages. Debian popcon, which is an external source specifically listed as an example of a tool for gauging package popularity in WP:SOFTWARE, confirms this. Therefore, notability per WP:SOFTWARE is not in question, and it's confirmed by an independent source. So what exactly is the problem with this? Inclusion in Debian and its apparent popularity there is solely enough to mark the software as notable enough in my opinion. You don't need anything else. Reviews, interviews, etc. are extra. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, based on that, I will agree that this achieves notability. How do you go about withdrawing one of these AfDs? The Kinslayer 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You could put <del>...</del> around the nomination at the top and state you're withdrawing the nomination. Regrettably, since this debate is not at the moment unanimous, I'm not sure if I can close this AfD as it stands - I don't have that much experience about closing AfDs yet - but I'll see the policies and at worst I can close it normally when we're closer to the deadline. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's cool. Thanks for the help. The Kinslayer 21:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You could put <del>...</del> around the nomination at the top and state you're withdrawing the nomination. Regrettably, since this debate is not at the moment unanimous, I'm not sure if I can close this AfD as it stands - I don't have that much experience about closing AfDs yet - but I'll see the policies and at worst I can close it normally when we're closer to the deadline. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 21:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Congratulations, you've established notability. How about editing the article so it asserts said notability, thereby passing WP:V? Establishing notability in an AfD debate is useless, you have to establish it in the article... --Roninbk t c e # 10:01, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, based on that, I will agree that this achieves notability. How do you go about withdrawing one of these AfDs? The Kinslayer 21:25, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you feel it's insignifcant, make an AfD discussion. I don't judge articles in relation to other ones, I judge the article on it's own worthiness. Saying 'if X has an article than this should have one' is a bad precedent to set. The Kinslayer 17:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per above. Havok (T/C/c) 18:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep one of the most important emulators for one of the most important systems. — brighterorange (talk) 14:34, 12 October 2006 (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.