Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari (4th nomination)

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 no consensus to delete. (I know it's usually poor form for a user with a clear bias in the matter to close an AfD, but I don't think anybody will dispute it in this case.) - furrykef (Talk at me) 17:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Somari

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

I understand what the game is. It's a Genesis game working on Nintendo, so it's basically the original Sonic the Hedgehog on NES, but the hacker replaced Sonic with Mario Just because a hack is "impressive" does not make it notable and does not warrant an article. I've gotten several more impressive hacks and pirates deleted using AFD in the past, and just because a hack or pirate is "good" does not bear any meaning on if it deserves an article or not. I don't care how many years of work went through to make it, I don't care what kind of special software was used to put it all together, all I care about if it is notable or not and fits into Wikipedia guidelines. If the hack has any effect on an official video game company or their official games, been commented on by Nintendo or Sega or any other notable video game companies, been talked about on a notable magazine, website (just not a brief mention page like with Mobygames, since websites like that have places where anyone can contribute information to) etc.. As an example, look at this: [1]and you'll see why I didn't remove that ROM hack mention.

Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?

This page has resulted in deletion before. [2] Newspaper98 (talk) 17:40, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Historical note; This is actually #4, the first VfD apparently took place on 25 June 2004.[3] SkierRMH (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Strong keep. Yes, and we undeleted it because these grounds are entirely spurious, which I have already explained to you on your talk page. This debate will soon be closed because the deletion on these grounds has been overturned before (which is what the third AfD was -- overturning the second deletion) and you have not introduced anything new at all this time around. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Another Wikipedian suggested that we should have the debate because the article still lacks sources. Fine. In any case, my vote is still "strong keep", in part because the nominator doesn't seem to display any understanding of what the game in question actually is. - furrykef (Talk at me) 20:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Newspaper98, what would you consider a notable ROM hack? - furrykef (Talk at me) 21:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It should be possible to find sources. One is [4], where it was named game of the week by a sub-site of gamespy. I found that through a couple of seconds of google searching. — PyTom (talk) 04:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Delete The article is almost entirely primary sourced description or OR. No sources listed or found by me contain any actual information about the title (who made it, how, why, and so forth) just bemused speculation of their own, with no apparent fact checking to support it. Its only claim to notability would be if the emulator-era interest in the ROM was itself strong enough to be notable, but that would require a very different article, which also doesn't seem to be supported by reliable sources. gnfnrf (talk) 16:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep Nominator's edit history suggests an extreme bias towards hacks and fan translations in general; not a legitmate cause for deletion.--Claude (talk) 05:41, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

My edit history has nothing to do with what consensus should be reached. My reason is straight forward and you haven't even said why you don't believe it's legitimate. And no, I'm not bias if I'm letting this stay in: [5], and the fact that I'm willing to negotiate. Newspaper98 (talk) 06:14, 13 December 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.