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. JForget 00:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DaedalusX64[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I reiterate my reason behind the PROD: I have not been able to find any reliable sources that can provide any verifiable information for this emulator. Being heavily worked on, has "come a long way", or performs well doesn't assert notability. It needs reliable sources to establish that, but there's nothing out there (and I just did another search to make sure) beside forum postings and self-published entries from blogs. MuZemike 04:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —MuZemike 04:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no assertions of notability, and there are a few peacock terms in the article itself. ArcAngel (talk) 05:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nearest I can find are some news items at PSPUpdates and other PSP websites, but I'm not convinced that any of these sites qualify as reliable sources, and they are press-release type items. Marasmusine (talk) 12:14, 27 September 2009 (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.