Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU

XQEMU

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG: non-notable emulator with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I looked for sources and found only a handful of trivial mentions, not the "significant coverage" that we require, plus the usual unreliable sources like forum posts and user-generated wikis. The subject may become notable in the future, of course, but we can always recreate the article at that time. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

XQEMU is a monumental achievement of software engineering. The Xbox is perhaps the most difficult to emulate console ever made, so the work of the QEMU and XQEMU teams cannot be understated - this an effort 18 years in the making. If you don't understand why software is notable for an encyclopedia, I encourage you to check out this list of pages for comparable emulators which are equally notable and similarly written and cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_emulators , particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(emulator), or RPCS3, Dolphin, Cemu, PCSX2, PPSSPP, ZSNES, Xenia, Citra, ePSXe, Project64, Visual Boy Advance, and Nestopia.

Also, if you look at their history, you'll see that the nominating user is a serial hostile deletionist. I encourage you to please try to make articles better rather than trying to destroy them, and please don't waste the time of the people who actually do still try to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has the exact same level of citation as all of the other emulators listed. It's a software project, what do you expect, the New York Times? There are plenty of relevant blog articles and video demonstrations out there. I encourage editors to try to improve the page rather than delete it. Miserlou (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the situation: XQEMU is _the_ XBox emulator, and will be going forward. It's the one that got it right, because it took the harder LLE approach whereas others took the "easier" HLE approach. It took 18 years. This also means that the article can discuss the specific difficulties of Xbox emulation and the differences in approach, which it does.I can't think of a more notable achievement in emulation, and the only reason that a person would think that this isn't notable is if they were ignorant of the subject matter. Miserlou (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Trivial mention in reliable sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, you can talk about how this is the most important emulator since sliced bread. If there are reliable, secondary sources that discuss this in depth, then post them. I cannot find any, including the ones used in the article. Valeince (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just as an example, you could run twice as fast as Usain Bolt, but if you are the only person who says so, you shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. If you are truly so good, then many reliable sources would surely write about you, the same can be said about this emulator._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only trivial or primary mentions as far as I can tell.Slatersteven (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the author mentions a number of other articles about emulators; quite apart from WP:OSE, a number of those have exactly the same problem as this one. I don't see any reliable coverage on Xenia (emulator), PPSSPP, Nestopia, or VisualBoyAdvance, for example. Others rely on a single RS (hardly major coverage). Some (i.e. Dolphin (emulator), are well written. There's not a deletionist concept here, there's one that simply follows our policies on notability. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A deletion now does not prevent the article subject from later becoming notable and then deserving of an article. Rivselis (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I also searched and summarized on the author's talk page. Indeed, it is a narrow population interested in the topic, and with few (if any) who _could_ write/publish referenceable reviews or commentary. In fact I was wanting to ask at Help Desk or elsewhere (suggestions?) how does WP handle topics completely understood by only a small group of people, yet which topics may be usefully checked out by a much larger general population? As in, what does this term mean?

Imagine that Penrose tiling was much shorter, rather cryptic, and did _not_ have 59 notes, 8 primary sources, 16 secondary, and 8 external links. Perhaps like this, as a poor example. Does one have to wait until 'everybody' knows what a L-system quasicrystal is before including a topic here? Shenme (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]