Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCEUXD
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. Neither "keep" vote addressed the reason this was nominated. Deizio talk 21:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seemingly blatant advertising The Kinslayer 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep pending further discussion on the whole emulator issue. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games#Emulators FrozenPurpleCube 22:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:V. We don't need to wait for a resolution on the issue of appropriate notability for emulators, because this article should be deleted no matter what the outcome of any discussion. It has no sources whatsoever, much less credible, reputable ones. Verifiability is non-negotiable. --Satori Son 00:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What problems with verifiability do you have? A source is certainly referencable in discussing itself, and anybody who wants to see that can check the FCEUXD zip file. I'd say check their website, but that seems to have died. However, the released files are themselves still available. FrozenPurpleCube 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again I say: Availability is not notability. Just because it exists doesn't mean it deserves an article. I exist, where's my article? The Kinslayer 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and Verifiability are two different things. I responded to the one here. To the other, as I said previously, I'm still thinking on that. FrozenPurpleCube 13:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken from WP:N 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article'. Are Notability and Verifiabilty different? Yes. Are they closely connected? Again, yes. The Kinslayer 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difficulty in making a neutral article on an emulator? All you need to do is not say "Emulator X is better than Emulator Y" or similar such statements. Just stick to the basics which you can verify, and not worry about more details. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that we end with numerous articles consisting of the only 3-4 lines of information available on the emulator. I feel that would do more harm than good to Wiki in the long run The Kinslayer 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Worried that one day the Wiki servers will collapse under the weight of a multitude of tiny articles? :) Actually, I'm inclined to say that FCEUXD is less in need of an article and should properly be merged under FCE Ultra. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL, not at all! It just looks bad. If that is the only information available, merging to a list is the best option, but regardless, that would mean deleting this article. The Kinslayer 17:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just additionally, I think this is worth considering as well. WP:ILIKEIT#It_doesn't_do_any_harm The Kinslayer 21:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Worried that one day the Wiki servers will collapse under the weight of a multitude of tiny articles? :) Actually, I'm inclined to say that FCEUXD is less in need of an article and should properly be merged under FCE Ultra. FrozenPurpleCube 17:07, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem there is that we end with numerous articles consisting of the only 3-4 lines of information available on the emulator. I feel that would do more harm than good to Wiki in the long run The Kinslayer 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the difficulty in making a neutral article on an emulator? All you need to do is not say "Emulator X is better than Emulator Y" or similar such statements. Just stick to the basics which you can verify, and not worry about more details. FrozenPurpleCube 15:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Taken from WP:N 'a subject needs to be of sufficient importance that there are multiple reliable secondary sources, independent of the subject, on which we can base a verifiably neutral article'. Are Notability and Verifiabilty different? Yes. Are they closely connected? Again, yes. The Kinslayer 13:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability and Verifiability are two different things. I responded to the one here. To the other, as I said previously, I'm still thinking on that. FrozenPurpleCube 13:49, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once again I say: Availability is not notability. Just because it exists doesn't mean it deserves an article. I exist, where's my article? The Kinslayer 08:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What problems with verifiability do you have? A source is certainly referencable in discussing itself, and anybody who wants to see that can check the FCEUXD zip file. I'd say check their website, but that seems to have died. However, the released files are themselves still available. FrozenPurpleCube 00:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)[reply]
- Again, 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 18:30, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Fails at having any reliable sources independent of the publisher. Wickethewok 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.