Copied and pasted from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Somari&oldid=16563200 - discussion was moved here for consistency - furrykef (Talk at me) 18:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Article listed on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion Jun 25 to Jul 1 2004, consensus was to keep. Discussion:

This is an illegally produced game which has not produced many copies and was never very popular. I see no reason at all to not delete this page. --Marcus2 20:54, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• Keep! Follow the link [1] from the Somari page, that's a fascinating story and well worth an article I think! —Stormie 22:22, Jun 25, 2004 (UTC)
• I certainly learned something reading that. It doesn't appear to be an advert or spam, so... keep. — Lady Lysine Ikinsile 23:07, 2004 Jun 25 (UTC)
• Keep, as an interesting piece of punctuation (probably a comma) in the annals of videogame history. --Luc "Somethingorother" French 01:27, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep for similar reasons as stated by previous voters —siroχo 02:09, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • What can you possibly learn from reading the Somari page? --Marcus2 11:11, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
  • The game was illegally made, and although you may be able to learn something from it, it was made by amateurs who deliberately hacked Sonic the Hedgehog, ruined the original music to the previous game, and did not secure any copyright. You can learn something from this article, and this is because you can learn something every article ever deleted or listed in the vfd. Delete. --Marcus2 12:29, Jun 26, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete or rewrite significantly: with the screen shots and links, it seems like a booster page for an action that we on the open source side ought to oppose. If it's sufficiently rewritten to be less of a fan page, less of an implicit ad for warez, it would be a narrative of console copyright hacking. Geogre 13:13, 26 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Keep. In its current form it doesn't strike me as a fan page or implicit ad. It states that the game is pirated. Our belief that people shouldn't pirate software doesn't justify deleting an article that reports on a pirating. JamesMLane 07:25, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Even if the article says it's a pirate version, that shouldn't change its deletion status. The point is that it's an unoriginal game without a copyright which others can easily copy. Delete. Marcus2 16:07, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
      • What do you mean by "which others can easily copy"? —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 16:21, 2004 Jun 28 (UTC)
  • For the record, I added the screenshot to the article (which already existed) for the purposes of illustration, not promoting warez. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:50, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Nothing about this articles especially suggests it should be deleted. -Seth Mahoney 17:06, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
  • People have copied pirate versions of video games without being sued from the original makers. And as for User:Sethmahoney, who said, "Nothing about this articles especially suggests it should be deleted.", there is something in the article that suggests it be deleted. The thing is that it was an illegally made pirate game, and it is nothing but something poorly copied from Sonic the Hedgehog 1. Marcus2 22:27, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Whether or not it is illegally made is irrelevant to whether or not it represents part of a cultural phenomenon prevalent enough to justify its inclusion in an encyclopedia. Considering the number of articles currently on Wikipedia about games I've never heard of, its being about a video game doesn't seem to warrant its removal. Considering the fact that there are plenty of articles on serial killers, robberies, and other illegal activities on Wikipedia, its being illegal doesn't warrant its removal; and considering that there are plenty of articles on books I consider poorly written, the quality of the game makes no difference as to whether or not it warrants an article. -Seth Mahoney 23:00, Jun 28, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Krik 22:44, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)
• Keep - Tεxτurε 00:27, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
  • Ironically, what you [Seth Mahoney] say about what warrants deletion has a little something to it. What warrants arrest is proven illegal activity a person committed. So what's the point about the game being illegally made not warranting deletion? Marcus2 11:55, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
    • Why is the fact that the game is illegal a reason to delete an article about it? —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 12:22, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
      • I've finally been convinced. Keep. No wonder they have articles about illegal activities. Marcus2 12:41, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)
        • I'm not [yet] disagreeing with you, but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Do you think that articles on Murder (a crime) or Charles Manson (a criminal) are out of place on Wikipedia? —Lady Lysiŋe Ikiŋsile | Talk 12:55, 2004 Jun 29 (UTC)
• Keep. The game was obscure when it came out but has become more well-known due to emulation (see for example [2]). Pirate NES games are well-known among collectors and classic game enthusiasts for some of the crazy stuff they managed to do with the limited hardware; they didn't just copy games, but also made ports/knockoffs of games for other systems and even some original (though unlicensed) games. Somari is commonly used as an example - a game for a Nintendo system with their arch-rival Sega's mascot, running on a much less powerful system than it was originally designed for. I think we should even have a larger Pirate NES games article that would discuss other notable pirate NES creations like ports of Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, King of Fighters, and Tekken (!), Kart Fighter (an original fighting game with Nintendo characters), bajillion-in-one cartridges, etc., and this could be merged into it if necessary. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 15:50, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

End discussion