Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TR64

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:33, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TR64[edit]

(Find video game sources: "TR64" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

No assertion of notability, no sources, and no significant content. Does not appear likely to progress past stub status. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:07, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) czar · · 03:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —Mike moral ♪♫ 03:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nom that it is not notable,as the article said,lags behind other emulators.And its development is halted,so it is unlikely to become notable later.L smll 02:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, and comment by Lsmll. Doesn't meet the WP:GNG now, and isn't likely to get there if its lacking in quality and no longer being worked on... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would have closed this per nom's request as speedy keep #1 ~~since nom proposes a non-deletion action (merge)~~ (see request), but it's no longer eligible due to the current case for deletion. (Also see related merge discussion.) czar · · 20:38, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't actually request a merge in this one. It was done separately from that other group... Sergecross73 msg me 03:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably just because I wasn't paying that much attention when I nom'd it. But as I mentioned elsewhere, I think the distinction between delete and merge should hinge on whether this article is noteworthy enough to warrant a spot in the List Of article. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is noteworthy enough to warrant a spot on a list article, though? The current list includes several emulators that have no stand-alone article (FakeNE, FCE Ultra GX, iNES, neumlator, Nesoid, NESten, Nestopia UE, VirtuaNES, RockNes, and IMBNes), and several of those don't even have a source for verification (i.e. FCE Ultra GX, Nesoid, Nestopia UE, VirtuaNES, RockNes, and IMBNes). By those standards nothing should be deleted and everything should be merged. Or is the idea that the "List of" article should be stripped down to only a list of emulators notable enough to have stand-alone articles? I'm all for cutting out self-promotional nonsense on unremarkable small-scale emulators, but I think there is probably room to include more on the list than just those with stand-alone articles. I'd personally draw the line at RS verifiability. If a single significantly-covering RS or a handful of RSes providing minimal coverage can be located then I'd say it should be on the list. -Thibbs (talk) 15:03, 4 July 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.