Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PSX 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 delete. policy based arguments were on the deleting side Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PSX emulator[edit]

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

Article covers a PlayStation emulator, for which no reliable sources as defined by WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V can be found (besides the author's website, which is insufficient according to WP:SELFPUB due to the article's dependence on it). The article itself also fails to assert notability. Prod was contested by GamesoulMaster with the edit summary, "I object to deletion. The article is both notable and bearing verifiable information. What work it needs is not grounds for deletion." Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 00:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 00:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Half the reasons for deletion merely stem from this article's need for a revision more in keeping with Wikipedia's standards. The issue brought up with doing a Google search on the emulator only exists because of the emulator's name (which is called "pSX", a mere case adjustment of "PSX", what most people call the PlayStation). Assuming nobody else will step in to make the necessary revision(s), I will have it done well before the 7 days are up. In the meantime, any other concerned parties should feel free to further discuss deletion. --Gamesoul Master (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- "Half the reasons for deletion" being needing to meet Wikipedia standards is, well, as much as any reason it could need to be discussed for deletion depending on who is looking at it. An article not yet being complete isn't grounds for protection (though I admit I totally can't remember the WP policy code for it), but if this does get deleted you can continue work with WP:SB or within your talk page. If the additions and improvements are done at the end of the deletion discussion period they'll be seen and noted by viewers discussing or an administrator before actual deletion. Datheisen (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete -- Self-promotion; Editor who objected to the original delete request is a single-purpose account that only maintains this article. Concerns on WP:RS and etc as mentioned by discussion creator. See comment above for suggestions. Datheisen (talk) 07:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see how it's self-promotion when I'm not the creator of the emulator. At best, I am merely one of the more active people supporting it. I stick pretty much to this article because I'm still a rookie editor and other articles that I would have expertise in are already well-maintained by people more capable than me. I'm not even the creator of this article (though I had a hand in adding a lot of the information). Also, my account is not single-purpose, which is obvious when you see that I created it 10 months before I ever touched this article (and still long before the article's creation). I merely hadn't really found anything that needed serious addressing. I understand that the article is not currently not up to standards, but that is only because the people working on it (including myself) haven't made it so. The subject is notable, and the information if verifiable. And I realize that there are some technical grounds for deletion. I'm not arguing that. But all it needs is editing. I will do my best to bring this article up to standards, even if I still don't 100% *know* those standards. --Gamesoul Master (talk) 01:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Standards" isn't the issue here; it's whether or not the subject is notable. Since there are no reliable sources for it, the subject is presumed non-notable, which is grounds for deletion. This has to be addressed if the article is to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. WP:N, WP:RS and WP:V provide good explanations about notability and referencing. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The issue is "standards" because pSX is very well notable, but the article does not show it. Therefore, it's the article (which is required to meet Wikipedia's standards for articles) and not the subject matter in question here (which is the case anyway). Verifiability is a bit harder, because there are few "reliable" places that speak of emulators much. Using other emulator articles as an example wouldn't help either, because looking at articles for other emulators, you can see that most of the sources aren't as "reliable" as they should be. But even that issue is a matter of "standards", because it's Wikipedia's standards that determine what is "reliable", "notable", etc. But this is all besides the point anyway. It's pretty much agreed on that this article is lacking notability or references. The only real issue is what should be done about it. Deletion seems a bit extreme, but as has been stated, all that it would take is fixing up the article, if it's that simple. I'm doing the legwork on that right now, so we'll see how it goes. --Gamesoul Master (talk) 03:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because it's "hard" prove notable and there are "few" reliable places as you say, does not mean they can be ignored. Per Wikipedia standards, the burgeon to reach consensus and meet criteria is on the article creator and editors and not by those looking for improvement. Datheisen (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Single purpose account fails to establish causality to self promotion. In the same vein as Datheisen, an incomplete article is surely not grounds for deletion per the wikipedia spirit. If such were the case, most articles built up by multiple users would not exist as many started as short, possibly unreferenced stubs. Efforts should be made to work on the article before any consideration of deletion. Notability must also be taken in context. What is notable internationally may not be notable on a national scale or local scale ans vise versa. In this case though such an article may not be notable to you, it is notable in the PlayStation emulation community as one of the few working free emulators. As far as I am aware, Wikipedia is not an international reference encyclopedia taken under strict scrutiny, there is no need for notability guidelines that mirror one of such an encyclopedia. Finally to address self publish. This in itself is not a reason for immediately slapping a deletion tag. The first step would be to fix said article via editing or discussion. AFD may be considered upon long-term failure to address concerns. AFD is not the place to address initial concerns. That is what the discussion page for each article is for.Chuglur (talk) 16:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Single-purpose accounts alone are not grounds, but they are certainly valid evidence and are a sign of having no desire to assist in the community as a whole.
- Cleanup/Improvement is certainly welcomed, but addressing the WP:RS and WP:N is most important. Guidelines for deletion specifically mention that Wikipedia is not a ***Oh yes, and as more clarification, I said that an article not being complete enough to meet basic guidelines is directory of products. I admit that other articles in the smaller category this is listed in are questionable articles for the same reason, many are tagged for other things and have undergone major improvements over time. If the article ends up in better shape the AfD process will resolve itself when it's reviewed before actual deletion and spotted as addressing concerns. Datheisen (talk) 21:56, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarification -- Actually, I said that an article being incomplete is not an automatic protection from deletion of AfD tagging. It's not difficult for an article to be incomplete and still meet general guidelines at the same time. Wikipedia recommends editors hold pages in a sandbox or as part of userspace if an article is not sufficiently complete to meet guidelines, and there multiple editors can still work on it. This would be my suggestion as shown in WP:TPA, and as this article is far from new I can't see giving it a pass from WP:CHANCE Datheisen (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: AFD is not the place to address initial concerns. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure what you mean by "initial concerns". When I prodded the article, I reviewed it, noted the lack of citations and assertion of notability, and did a Google search to look for reliable sources (which proved fruitless). If there are any initial concerns of mine, it's that the subject currently does not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia for reasons I've already explained (no reliable sources, no way to prove notability etc.). Could you please better explain your reasoning? Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree. The level of the concerns given are never invalid, as they are some of Wikipedia's most basic guidelines. I'd like more explanation as well. Having a handful of pretty basic Wikipedia guidelines in question and then being even more concerned about an article after review is why AfD exists. Third parties come in and look at the article, and what Heavyweight Gamer went through should be standard procedure for anyone tagging AfD or commenting on it. It needs sources to meet the simplest of notability and verifiability standards. Period. I entirely understand the concept and process of emulation, but as I said earlier Wikipedia is not a directory and merely its existence does not qualify as notability and this product certainly doesn't fall into the list of "pre-approved" notability given at WP:DEFACTO. Datheisen (talk) 07:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find any sources that satisfy notability (WP:N), nor does the article present any. There is no reliable, independent verification (WP:V). Generic title complicates web search for sources but I'm fairly sure none of the Google News hits are relevant - they refer to emulators on platorms other than Windows. Marasmusine (talk) 12:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gamer and Mara won me over. - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Super Keep:

Whether the rest of you guys like it or not is of no concern to people visiting Wikipedia. The article, or really the subject, has good notability simply by way of the item's uniqueness. It is the only known Playstation emulator to have both high compatibility, usability, and not require any separate plug-ins.
Plus, there is the whole possibly-emulating-PS2-games-in-the-future thing (although technically it already can). That's another unique feature (in that it could be the only other emulator to perform this task). Once the next release comes out, you can guarantee more references.
It was very bad form to just put this article up for deletion. What was the rationale to spring that on everyone? It's not like every article has followers that check for changes every day, let alone in a week. That seems like a rash attempt to get what some random user wants. 69.244.250.85 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (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.