Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JPCSP

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 delete. The sole 'keep's argument that other articles would need to be deleted is not strictly relevant to this discussion. The consensus is clearly that the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that this article should be deleted PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JPCSP

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

Over a year, and still no secondary sources, still no assertion of notability. I could not locate any significant coverage of this emulator in books or magazines. There are a number of web hits, but no secondary reporting from reliable publications. WP:V, WP:N Marasmusine (talk) 10:43, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A brief search yields no non-primary, significant coverage sources, beyond directory entries and download pages. Does not pass WP:GNG as far as I can tell. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 14:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we delete this, we might as well delete all the other emulator pages out there, along with a lot of indie softwares. 64.42.217.69 (talk) 19:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Unfortunately, you are right, and the majority of indie software/emulators would not pass Wikipedia inclusion criteria. Regardless, we evaluate each article by its own merits. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment we had a discussion a while back about another emulator, and the point raised there was that though few sources talk about this sort of thing due to their grey-market legality, the requirement for multiple, independent, reliable, sources is absolute. HominidMachinae (talk) 06:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But, also, there are lots of good, solid sources that cover console emulators. For example, books I've been using for verification in the "List of" article include [1][2] and [3]. It makes me sigh whenever I hear the "indy software gets no coverage!" canard. Marasmusine (talk) 10:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you entirely. I guess I should clarify that what I meant is that the requirement for multiple reliable sources is not mitigated by something being indy or being grey-market. Some things are so notable that they get ample coverage despite being underground. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right! Sorry, I wasn't directing that at you. Marasmusine (talk) 10:32, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I must agree with the lack of reliable sources being a crucial factor to meet the Wikipedia's standards when it comes to keep this article or not, but when I wrote this project's page no one could have predicted the current situation we're facing. Not only we need better resources to promote and document our project, but also most sources have little to no interest in it due to the current legal actions that are taking place concerning the console system in cause. Therefore, this project has been only subsisting with help from regular users and contributors, which is exactly the same scenario that's taking place in the domains of the regular homebrew scene (which has also very limited recognition, concerning the console system in cause). Hykem (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2011 (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.