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 keep. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PCSX2[edit]

PCSX2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This program does not establish notability through detailing its cultural impact with the inclusion of reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of primary production details and technical details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can those really be stated to truly establish it as a notable topic? Most of those sites seem to go over emulators pretty regularly, giving only brief overviews. Three of them are pretty much only confirming that it exists, much like a few other dozen programs. Two of them can count as reviews, but it really doesn't look like anything besides a couple brief sentences saying "it does stuff" can be gotten out of them. The overall coverage doesn't really seem to be widespread enough if sites with some focus on reporting most emulator-related news are the only ones available. They could certainly help the topic of Video game console emulator, or even Playstation console emulator should it get to that point, in showing their widespread appeal, only if people weren't so caught up in making these giant manuals and instead looked at it from a more scholarly perspective. It is a pretty interesting topic, but I guess people care more about which DirectX version works best. TTN (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I generally agree with you, but "this exists" is really all it takes to establish notability, though some hardliners might contest the presented articles as trivial. Consensus seems to indicate that this is what we want Wikipedia to be and these are the rules we want. I would prefer a more scholarly approach, but Wikipedia seems to favor a pop culture approach. This software is not as notable as I would like, and we'll never have a scholarly article on it, but it satisfies the absolute minimum requirements of notability. That's enough for me to vote "keep". Video game console emulator has much more potential for scholarly treatment, and it could probably reach Featured if someone worked very hard; however, I'm a PC game bigot, and you'd have to pay me to write a Featured article on console games/emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fixed the tone, did some copy edits, converted long lists into concise tables, and added some sources. I think it looks pretty decent now, actually. It's certainly not my best work, but it's enough to convince me that the article is salvageable and worthwhile. I suspect that it will languish in Start-class limbo for the rest of its existence, but not every article has to be promoted to Good/Featured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability on Wikipedia is a bit idiosyncratic. It's not necessarily a measure of importance or popularity, though they can certainly help. Notability is generally established through the use of independent sources who have demonstrated a history of fact-checking. This assures us that we're writing about a topic deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and that it has a chance to be both verifiable and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. So would the main claim here be that there are not enough informative reputable independent sources acknowledging/referencing/reviewing/etc PCSX2, therefore it could suggest that PCSX2 is not deserving of an entry? If that's not the case, I'd greatly appreciate if you could spell the argument out for me, and also, if still required, please let us know how could we help remedy this, if at all. Also, what is the main derivative of this argument? That the entry is lacking in accuracy? or that PCSX2 itself is maybe too insignificant for Wikipedia? etc. Thanks in advance, -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, exactly right – we need more independent, reputable sources to identify PCSX2 as a significant topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. I dug up a few reviews, which provides a degree of notability, but more coverage would be helpful for both establishing notability and assisting our readers. The best thing you could do is to locate (or solicit) coverage from professional journalists. Blogs and other self-published sources are generally considered not to be reliable sources, as they lack editorial control and fact-checking. An incomplete list of video game-related reliable sources is available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. One important criterion is that the coverage must be substantial; trivial mentions, such as a single sentence, don't help to establish notability. Sources can be offline, paywalled, or non-English. I've already located five sources and added them to the article, which is usually enough to save articles from deletion. Still, it would be helpful to have more, and one editor has expressed his dissatisfaction with the quality of my sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks again very much for your helpfulness :) would the sources which Bosit(man) posted here be enough? (he's the guy which gave the interview at his links) How and when would a decision be taken on this, and would it also appear on this page? -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be more than enough. Usually, deletion debates last for one week, though they can be relisted to get further opinions if there is no consensus. I'll try to get around to adding these sources to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, | Uncle Milty | talk | 11:51, 15 September 2013 (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.
More