Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INES (NES 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 - information in the article is trivial, so if a merge target is identified at some later date it can be requested back. Yomanganitalk 23:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] INES (NES emulator)
Delete - No sources, non-notable, seems to have been created solely to compare unfavourably to other emulators The Kinslayer 21:28, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm going to repeat my comment from the earlier FCE Ultra discussion and say that this is just the tip of an iceberg. Or look at list of emulators. Sure, some, for example, those with commercial releases, are going to be fine. But what about the rest? Should Wikipedia have information on them or not? Where to draw the line? FrozenPurpleCube 21:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- You do have a point, so do you have any thoughts? Because you can't just include every emulator ever made, as many of these pages seem to be for advertising or vanity reasons and have no notability at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so a line needs to be drawn. All the ones I've tagged are ones I feel fail to make any claims, and no reliable sources are turned up when searching the net. As for it being the tip of the iceberg, maybe a few of use should look specifically at Emulators as part of the CVG project? The Kinslayer 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm holding off on releasing my thoughts till they've had time to develop a little bit, and maybe till I've had a chance to see what other people think. I do know I don't agree with using the typical Wikipedia buzzwords to support a deletion, but that's not specific to this discussion, but rather an opposition to the practice of reducing a thought to a policy. Too much in the way of a mindless hidebound bureacracy for me. That, however, is really another matter. In this specific case though, I don't think we should nominate anything till more of a discussion happens, no matter how trivial an article might be. That way, we don't have to worry about what might slip through the cracks between proposal and consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason I use 'buzzwords' is so people can see at a glance the exact reasons I nominated the articles. If you want to set up a discussion, head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games and set up a discussion outlining the points you think should be tackled, and then we can get a general consensus from the rest of the CVG project community. Is this OK with you? The Kinslayer 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll do that, though I'd prefer you to defer on further deletions till some sort of consensus was developed. Buzzword discussion is for another time and place. FrozenPurpleCube 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- That's fine, I'll hold off nominating any more articles like this until we can reach a group decision. The Kinslayer 22:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'll do that, though I'd prefer you to defer on further deletions till some sort of consensus was developed. Buzzword discussion is for another time and place. FrozenPurpleCube 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- The only reason I use 'buzzwords' is so people can see at a glance the exact reasons I nominated the articles. If you want to set up a discussion, head over to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games and set up a discussion outlining the points you think should be tackled, and then we can get a general consensus from the rest of the CVG project community. Is this OK with you? The Kinslayer 22:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'm holding off on releasing my thoughts till they've had time to develop a little bit, and maybe till I've had a chance to see what other people think. I do know I don't agree with using the typical Wikipedia buzzwords to support a deletion, but that's not specific to this discussion, but rather an opposition to the practice of reducing a thought to a policy. Too much in the way of a mindless hidebound bureacracy for me. That, however, is really another matter. In this specific case though, I don't think we should nominate anything till more of a discussion happens, no matter how trivial an article might be. That way, we don't have to worry about what might slip through the cracks between proposal and consensus. FrozenPurpleCube 21:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- You do have a point, so do you have any thoughts? Because you can't just include every emulator ever made, as many of these pages seem to be for advertising or vanity reasons and have no notability at all. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so a line needs to be drawn. All the ones I've tagged are ones I feel fail to make any claims, and no reliable sources are turned up when searching the net. As for it being the tip of the iceberg, maybe a few of use should look specifically at Emulators as part of the CVG project? The Kinslayer 21:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Whether or not we need to draw a line regarding the notability of emulators may be important, but it is a moot point regarding this specific article. Per WP:V, "If an article topic has no reputable, reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on that topic." This article clearly falls short of that line, which trumps everything else. --Satori Son 21:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- Would it help you to know that there are emulation sites that describe iNes? And other such emulators? Check [1] or [2] Sure, they're not the New York Times, but how often do you think the Times writes about console emulators? Or any other such topic? Some things simply get less attention than others. Does that mean Wikipedia shouldn't have information on them? I don't feel I can concur. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Three lines of text and a link to the official site? I stand by my reason that this page seems to have been solely created to have a go at this emulator and should be deleted as an attack page.The Kinslayer 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, remove the questionable parts if you want, I was thinking about how to do that myself. Or how to find information to verify/dispute the claims. Those are clean-up problems though, not necessarily deletion issues. Personally, I think given that the author of iNes has produced several emulators, it might be more worthwhile to see if he's notable enough on his own to make him the article and instead redirect iNes and the rest to a page about him. FrozenPurpleCube 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to question those sources though. All they do are prove that this exists, rather than if they are worth making a note of. The Kinslayer 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I doubt the argument is that it exists, which serves to differ an article like this, which is about something tangible, from say something that is more theoretical and inherently argumentative, like say, Racism in Star Wars(I hope that article doesn't really exist, mind you). For ones like this one, I see a need to clean-up, for the other, I see a need to prove first. FrozenPurpleCube 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- But just existing shouldn't be enough to warrant a wikipedia article. For the same resons you can't have an article about a living person just because they are alive, you shouldn't have an article on an emulator that's (by the searching I did) completely unremarkable just because it was made. The only way I see is if the Author proves to be notable, and following what you propose in that case. But other than that, I really see no reasonable justification for keeping this article. The Kinslayer 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, proving notability is often a problem with things that are under the radar of the mainstream media. Me, I think if a search for NES emulators turns up with something, it's enough to stay. Still, I'd probably prefer one single article on NES emulators rather than a dozen)or more) seperate ones. It'd save a lot of trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I'd be open to the possibility of consolidating it all into a single list of NES emulators, as well as doing the same for other systems. The Kinslayer 23:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Well, proving notability is often a problem with things that are under the radar of the mainstream media. Me, I think if a search for NES emulators turns up with something, it's enough to stay. Still, I'd probably prefer one single article on NES emulators rather than a dozen)or more) seperate ones. It'd save a lot of trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 23:07, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- But just existing shouldn't be enough to warrant a wikipedia article. For the same resons you can't have an article about a living person just because they are alive, you shouldn't have an article on an emulator that's (by the searching I did) completely unremarkable just because it was made. The only way I see is if the Author proves to be notable, and following what you propose in that case. But other than that, I really see no reasonable justification for keeping this article. The Kinslayer 22:51, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed, I doubt the argument is that it exists, which serves to differ an article like this, which is about something tangible, from say something that is more theoretical and inherently argumentative, like say, Racism in Star Wars(I hope that article doesn't really exist, mind you). For ones like this one, I see a need to clean-up, for the other, I see a need to prove first. FrozenPurpleCube 22:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have to question those sources though. All they do are prove that this exists, rather than if they are worth making a note of. The Kinslayer 22:27, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Eh, remove the questionable parts if you want, I was thinking about how to do that myself. Or how to find information to verify/dispute the claims. Those are clean-up problems though, not necessarily deletion issues. Personally, I think given that the author of iNes has produced several emulators, it might be more worthwhile to see if he's notable enough on his own to make him the article and instead redirect iNes and the rest to a page about him. FrozenPurpleCube 22:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Three lines of text and a link to the official site? I stand by my reason that this page seems to have been solely created to have a go at this emulator and should be deleted as an attack page.The Kinslayer 22:10, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Would it help you to know that there are emulation sites that describe iNes? And other such emulators? Check [1] or [2] Sure, they're not the New York Times, but how often do you think the Times writes about console emulators? Or any other such topic? Some things simply get less attention than others. Does that mean Wikipedia shouldn't have information on them? I don't feel I can concur. FrozenPurpleCube 22:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- Keep An AfD is not a way to clean up articles! If you want something moved to another Wiki, cleaned up or verified, please use the appropriate tags. You can use the {{Move to gaming wiki}}, {{cleanup}}, {{gameguide}} and/or {{fact}} tags to help the article, as an AfD is worthless in this case. Havok (T/C/c) 18:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- The point of this wasn't to clean up the article. I'd prodded it, Manticore contested it, so it moved to AfD. The discussion about clean up just follwed on from our debate. The Kinslayer 18:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
- As I stated, AfDing articles because they don't meet WP:V and WP:RS is not the way to do things. I would rather you tag it and see what comes of it. You don't even give anyone a chance to verify it. And even if it was verified while tagged, it would get deleted the way this vote is going. INes is actually one of the more well known emulators and as such is deserves to be here. The article is not even tagged as a stub. Next time, help make things better by working on the article, and not just blatantly AfD it. Havok (T/C/c) 09:11, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Doesn't seem to meet WP:V/WP:RS. Wickethewok 05:32, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - see above. /Blaxthos 12:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Satori Son. Vectro 23:25, 17 October 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.
