Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BGB (emulator)

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 delete. Jaranda wat's sup 20:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BGB (emulator)

Delete per failure to establish compliance with WP:SOFTWARE. Long essay on talk was unhelpful. - CrazyRussian talk/email 04:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete Not sufficiently important a piece of software for Wikipedia. SM247My Talk 06:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

for emulators, I think looking at multiple emulation review sites, and hobby development (such as "demos") sites gives a good indication of how an emulator "ranks". review sites have people who try emulators, and given them a rating, and a comment/opinion. sometimes they also have user voting. another thing is the author of KiGB, one of the most accurate and known GB emus, has a selection of what he considers "best other emus" on his site, for benchmarking purposes: [1]. these things show there's a few GB emulators which are "in the race", or most popular, "best", etc. i think such things count as peer review, according to wikipedia's guidelines. a rough selection, in no particular order, is: no$gmb, bgb, visualboy advance, kiGB. I think inclusion in linux distribution is a less good thing for emulators because it biases towards GPL emulators, and linux distros have to look at "everything", not just emulators. while i listed a number of review sites considering bgb to be the best, on BGB's talk page, it seems that's irrelevant, and bgb (54000 google hits for bgb gameboy) is worth less than eXboy (84 google hits for exboy gameboy), and wzonka-lad (1110 google hits for wzonka-lad gameboy)Bewareircd 13:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

some people from a gameboy hobby community (#gameboy on efnet): dox: is a coder of demos, tools, and an emulator (hash). bgb is his emulator/debugger of choice. site: [2]. lord nightmare, involved in gnuboy. has done research on sound chips including the GB's. uses bgb. <LordNLptp> the fans and authors of a select few, typically bad, emulators tend to be the ones which get put on wikipedia. <LordNLptp> gnuboy is pretty much dead, the main site is down and i have probably the last remaining copy of the 1.0.4pre sourcecode <dox> bgb came a bit too late.. when gameboy was already dead <dox> ppl used no$for dev. but it was a bit buggy. martin knew about bugs and problems, but never fixed them.... Bewareircd 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Bewareircd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

  • Keep I googled "gameboy emulator", the first site i got was a comparison page "http://www.emulator-zone.com/doc.php/gameboy/" which rated bgb highest among the gameboy/gameboy color emulators (there is one higher entry on the page but that is an advance only emulator). going a couple of entries further down finds another review site with a similarly glowing review of bgb. and at the top of the second page we find bgb itself.

    If this is to be deleted so should every other gameboy emulator article and for fairness treated as a group deletion. WP:SOFTWARE is only a proposed policy and is insanely biased towards free software. Plugwash 21:47, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
    • WP:NBD (but it's not a bad idea) - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak Delete in its present form. WP:SOFTWARE requires "multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." (And although it's not an official policy, it is an extension of WP:V which is. Satisfying WP:SOFTWARE is as simple as editing the article to include links to review sites. And by the way, the emulator-zone article isn't really a review site, as the only information given a star-rating for the program (which is subject to change by site users.) and a list of features. As such, it serves as a "listing on software download sites." which is considered trivial by WP:SOFTWARE. --Roninbk t c # 21:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - close call but what swings it for me is the absence of independent reviews within the article. despite AfD and little in the way of encyclopaedic material. BlueValour 22:16, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mangojuicetalk 16:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Yanksox 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per lack of independent coverage of the software by reliable sources. NeoChaosX [talk | contribs] 23:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Neutral if this is deleted, then do have an equally critical look at the other GB emulators. there's similar short pages lacking external references etc, i think most can go.Bewareircd 16:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 10:23, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
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.