Talk:Gekko (emulator)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Deletion of the article

I see no reason for deleting this article."not-yet-released. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" according to this reason, shouldn't articles such as August Rush or Artemis Fowl (film) be deleted as well? Since it is 'not-yet released'? .Also there is complete confirmation that one such emulator is under production. Please see the "official website" link at the bottom If others might suggest/discuss about this article please do so. -TusharN

By "Complete confirmation" you mean there are some screenshots and 2 news posts? There were lots of other "emulators" before, complete with web pages and screenshots, which later turned out to be simple fakes done in Photoshop. --Michael Drüing 11:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for spotting that out Michael. Due to that, i have now added 2 external links leading to the forums where Gekko's progress is being made. It is using a public Forum temporarily and will be getting it's own soon. If you would see, there are now more than "2" screenshots and if read carefully, you will see that there is progress being made. I have personally requested for "release-dates" and i hope to get them soon.

Quote: "There were lots of other "emulators" before, complete with web pages and screenshots, which later turned out to be simple fakes..." i am not aware about this, please enlighten me.TusharN 14:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I wanted to help by filling in a few things but I'm noticing that some poeple are actually saying stuff they don't even know. This article is best to be deleted and create it once it is released (How do you actually delete the page? You just clear the whole content? I'm new to this wiki stuff). Also the page should be named "Gekko (Emulator)" not "Gekko Emulator". The only persons that could actually contribute right now would be the dev team or the beta-testers. --Chrono Archangel 14 January 2007

ShizZy, the author of Gekko, has mentionned that he will release once he feels it outperforms Dolphin. And since Dolphin's latest beta shows alot of progress, it may take a while before he decides to release a version to the public. --Chrono Archangel 13 January 2007

Greetings. That may be true indeed. People do asume things that they do not know about. It is only human instincts, when you hear the new release of (a hypothetical) "Star Wars" movie, obviously you believe that it is better then the predecessors. Also, it is nothing but true that you would also believe that it deals with our well alive Protagonist "Luke Skywalker", but to a certain extent it might justbe an allusion and nothing of this sort may happen.What i am trying to say is : If no information is supplied, assumptions will be made, and you can't blame anyone for that. My first point is proved. Secondly, as i said before, there is no need to delete this article. Just like upcoming movies, this too is something of that sort. If you observe, on Wikipedia's Calender of scheduled events, there are events scheduled for years ten or more in the future. Information can be added later and can be expanded upon. And no, you have no authority to delete my article, and it will be counted as vandalism. If you justify a proper reason to do so please place it on this talk page and we shall come to a conclusion.About the name, True. I will try to get it edited, not to worry. IF someone else (The Development team or the beta testers) would like to contribute, please ask them to do so.TusharN 11:54, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I had no intention of deleting the article without everyone agreeing on it. I just didn't know how an article is deleted... Ok, you made a good point regarding the non-deletion of the article but I do feel obligated to remove the false statements that are being made. There is a difference between speculating and stating facts... --Chrono Archangel 19 January 2007

Right, i appreciate your additions and confirmations made to my article and i thank you for it. And to fulfill your curiosity, which i hope will not be used against me, you cannot delete an article immediately. You have to either report it to a moderator or put a warning that the article has to be deleted. If the warning (with a proper reason) remains there for 5 days it may be deleted.TusharN 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear... WHy do you people keep re-opening the topic of this article's deletion. At least give a reason. If you people (mainly Leebo86) bothered reading this talk page, he would have understood. So at least put up a clean arguement before you try anything drastic.TusharN 14:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

There was never a proper discussion of the deletion of the article, and I don't see that its notability have been proven. The prod was removed, but anyone can remove a prod without discussion. Please don't accuse me of acting improperly. The deletion of an article is not a comment on the subject or author, it's simply a process of upholding Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Leebo⁸⁶ 20:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me explain. One last time. This article is like an investment. With time it's relevence will grow larger. At the moment it is infact corresponding with all of Wikipedia's rules. As i said before, this article is like other articles about upcoming movies or events. Not yet occoured but most certainly will. Are you blind? What do you think this topic is ? It is about the deletion of this article which has been suggested before(user:Joyous), argued about, won by me and was not deleted. I see no reason for bringing up this topic all over again. Please do not waste my valuable time on a topic that has been discussed before. I will consider your views, but only if they were relevant. Unfortunately yours is not.Yet again i will give you a chance to negotiate. I will regard your pitiful excuses to delete my article as vandalism until unless an "entirely" valid reason is supplied that has not been discussed before !. TusharN 21:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll ask you one last time to not make personal attacks. I have given you my reasoning, and it's that the subject is not notable by Wikipedia's definition, and there are no sources to support notability. It does not conform to Wikipedia's guidelines and policies right now. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I hope I don't also have to point out that I helped you in renaming the article last month, so the argument that I haven't read the discussion is unfounded. I assumed that there would be some substantial work done on the article when I last saw it, but no work was done after the move. Seeing the same problems as existed for the original prod here today, I took the discussion into a larger forum. Leebo⁸⁶ 21:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wow... I honestly don't care anymore what happens with this. Leebo, I'm no wiki expert and I don't really feel like reading through all the wikipedia "standards", but what is this entry missing for it to be considered valid and to remove the DROP? What needs fixing specifically? --Chrono Archangel 6 February 2007

Well, if you don't mind reading at least one page, please look at the guidelines for software notability. A piece of software should meet at least one of those if it's to be included in the encyclopedia. Gekko doesn't. The article is also based solely on primary sources, there are no reliable sources. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

So basicly... A software needs to have news coverage to be notable. The notability creterias seem too restrictive and I'm positive there are numourus articles on Wikipedia that do not meet those criterias. But I'm not here to compare Gekko to others. I just do not have the time to lurk around Wikipedia for that. I am no part the author of Gekko, so the coverage I make on this emulator on NGEmu, Emuforums or Emutalk is not enough to count? Also, how is an official website not a reliable source?--Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

Read the page on reliable sources to see why the official site is often not enough to sustain an article. Anyone can buy a webpage and make their subject seem notable, but notability relies on third parties independent of the subject. Basically, someone else has to notice the subject and write about it (and that person has to be a reliable source). Yes, of course the guidelines are restrictive, that's the whole point. And if you see articles that don't meet the guidelines, nominate them for deletion. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Big emulation networks like NGEmu and Emulation64 are third parties independent of the subject. They are no way affiliated or tied with the emulator... I'm sorry but the "No reliable source" is not a good arguement. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

I don't see anything but forums and the official site in the article. If what you're referring to is in fact reliable, you should add it to the article. Leebo⁸⁶ 01:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe TusharN and ChronoArchangel are right. You never specify what the reason is. Instead of just threatening to delete the article(maybe because you are jelous of the author) you should help them improve it. I think you are a failure of a moderator. The things you do are horribly unwise. I request you to consult more sensible/experianced/less ignorant moderators before you place your unjust decisions. -Critic111

As I said to TusharN, please don't make personal attacks. I am not a "moderator" (I assume you mean administrator), I am just a regular editor looking to improve the encylopedia like everyone else. Please make your arguments at the AfD discussion rather than remove the AfD notice. Leebo⁸⁶ 16:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I give up. If the administrators want it this way. amen to that. I din't mean to "question your authority" [Sarcasm Attack] in the previous post. You win. Delete it. Wikipedia will just lose out. I tried to help and i get nothing in return. As a matter of fact... Thank you.[resignation] TusharN 16:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I really have other things to do then argue. The three persons that were active in this discussion, TusharN (creator of article), Leebo (volunteer Wikipedia new article patroller), and myself, all agree to the deletion of this article. If anyone else feels it should not be deleted, please make your presence known. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

This discussion doesn't really have much bearing on the fate of the article. The official deletion discussion is here and the consensus is currently for deletion. It will last a few more days and then an administrator will decide. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gekko's Forum

Now on the other hand, I really think Gekko needs a proper forum. The one on the official website is going haywire. Yes i know that you use one of Ngemu's, but with such popularity, i think it is only right if you create a system of forum, where users have to register first before commenting. Look at the state an anonymous "WikiArticleDeleter" is posing as the developers and claiming false stuff. Please do something about this. Thank you. TusharN 06:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Installing a forum for Gekko means more work for me :( And I'm a lazy guy. It's on my todo list though....--Chrono Archangel 21 January 2007

Well, since Gekko isn't going to be released in a long time, you might as well get a proper forum. It will make all the difference. Seriously, WAD (WikiArticleDeleter) is a crazy person. He never even once attempted to delete my article. I think he is just frustrated that is not releasing.TusharN 07:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Forum is now opened --Chrono Archangel 6 February 2007

[edit] Re-Naming This Article

This article has to be re-named to "Gekko (Emulator)" and not Gekko Emulator. Does anyone know how to ? any moderator i might be able to ask help from ? Thanks. TusharN 14:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can't you just copy everything from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gekko_Emulator to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gekko_(Emulator) and flush the old one? --Chrono Archangel

Not to worry i think i got things under control. I can't just copy the pages as it is breaching WIkipedia rules, because it destroys the edit page etc. Thanks for the advice anyway.TusharN 05:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

There we go ... Done and Done. End topic. TusharN 05:36, 23 January 2007 (UTC)