Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gekko (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. Bucketsofg 04:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gekko (emulator)

Gekko (emulator) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This is a non-notable emulator (there are no sources cited for any third party media coverage). The only information that is provided at all is from the emulator's forum. The general entry is not encyclopedic, as it credits Internet aliases for creation of the software. Leebo⁸⁶ 14:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Information are not provided from the emulator's forum but from general emulation forums. Also, all emulator articles contain aliases as author names. Gekko should not be seperated from the rest, thus your comment has no impact on the deletion of the article. Authors are allowed to keep their real identity off the internet. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

Gekko's forum, any forum... it doesn't really matter. No forum should ever be used as a source. They're not reliable. Leebo⁸⁶ 03:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

That's just ridiculous. I've seen many emulators that don't have a website and post all news and releases on big emulation boards. Keep in mind that we're not talking about the latest NASA shuttle here. It's an emulator. I'm fine with following Wikipedia's standards and all but sometimes you need to use common sens too. In the emulation scene, places like Emutalk and Emuforums are reliable sources. You can't expect the emulator to make the frontpage news of the New York Times. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

I'll admit that sometimes the rules should be ignored for the sake of improving the encyclopedia, but I just don't see how an unreleased emulator with no attention outside of the emulator niche can be considered notable. Perhaps when it's actually released. Leebo⁸⁶ 04:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, good one. Seriously though. According to the rules, a release shouldn't even help since it will be posted on Gekko's website and no where else outside the emulation scene. Basicly, all emulators are breaking the rules. Great. At this point, I will let the administrator decide the fate of the article. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

• Weak delete, unsubstantiated claims of "pressumed to be the best". Plus this is a very new development, released well under less than a year ago I think? Mathmo ^Talk 18:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Article has been edited to be more neutral. --Chrono Archangel 7 February 2007

• Dear me. Have you people even read the talk page on gekko (emulator). If you read hard enough you will see that i have proved quite a many number of times why this article should not be deleted. I do not want to waste my time on arguing on a topic that i have argued upon before. please do not be pathetic and/or jeleous and leave the article alone. Thank you (P.S: I do not really like the moderators around here. Too much power. Uncontrolled power. But thats not for me to decide)TusharN 20:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TusharN (talk • contribs)

• Comment Please provide some sources to back up your claim that it is notable (not including Gekko's creators themselves). I do not see this in the article or its talk page. Also, please refrain from personal attacks (comment on content, not editors). Leebo⁸⁶ 20:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - (or as a compromise, userfy) no reliable sources within the article to establish notability. No user ranking or entry at the Emulator zone website. The article also fails WP:NOT#CBALL, without reliable sources to verify Gekko's future release from third party articles. There are also concerns (but not necessarily reasons for deletion) with WP:OWN and WP:NPOV as well. If it does establish notability within the emulation community after its release (with emulators like Gens, Kega Fusion or ZSNES for example), it could be added back at a later date. --tgheretford (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not appear to meet WP:SOFTWARE or any other notability criterion. CiaranG 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete per A7. Reads like an advertisement to me, and the only sources I found when I went for a look were non-notable mentions in forums. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
• Bad decisionsInstead of deleting the article. tell the authors how to improve it ! do not waste your time arguing! (to author too) waste or i should say utilize this time improving the quality of the article to an extent of satisfaction. DO SOMETHING CONSTRUCTIVE INSTEAD OF DESTRUCTIVE! how are we supposed to co-operate with such incompetance as ... you know who...*coughleebocough* -critic111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Critic111 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's interesting that you'll tell us to cooperate with the article's editors and be constructive while calling someone incompetent. The problem is not with the article itself per-se, but more with the notability of the subject matter. I've actually tried to look for third-party sources for this emulator, but I've found nothing that verifies using Wikipedia's policy of reliable sources. No matter how professional the article itself might be, it still has no place here if it's not notable. By the page's admission it hasn't been released yet, and all my searches haven't turned up any sources which aren't forums or from the developer. And please read up on the policy regarding personal attacks, critic. Cheers, Lankybugger 14:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Can you point to me one emulator that does have something that falls under reliable source? Thanks. --Chrono Archangel 8 February 2007

• Maybe and maybe not, but that's covered by the fact that inclusion is not an indicator of notability anyway. Regardless, a search for Gamecube Emulator on google doesn't turn up anything about Gekko, only things on something called Dolphin. Searching for an SNES emulator turns up ZSNES as the top search term. The question is not whether OTHER emulators have sources, the question is whether THIS emulator has sources. Cheers, Lankybugger 20:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why you are using Google to demonstrate your point... Google is by far not reliable enough by Wikipedia's standards. I don't see what you are trying to tell me with your SNES exemple... all I can understand from you previous reply is that other than ZSNES no other emu has it's place on Wikipedia? Aniwa... Sure I shouldn't compare to other emulators, but if no emulators can acheive the notability requirements of Wikipedia, why have emulators on Wiki alltogether... --Chrono Archangel 9 February 2007

The question of "why have emulators on Wikipedia altogether" is not the issue for discussion here. It must be dealt with on a case by case basis. It's not possible or practical to say "all of [x]" are not notable, and simply delete them. Leebo⁸⁶ 02:04, 10 February 2007 (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.