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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 05:39, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EPSXe[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable PlayStation emulator. A Google search turns up the website and a few blogs, but no reliable sources. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you say is simply not true. ePSXe is not as relevant as it used to be, but it is very famous and it is still very common to see it used, so I would keep the article if I were you. If the ePSXe article gets deleted, Wikipedia may as well delete the article for Bleem which is now dead, but it's part of the history of PlayStation emulation just like ePSXe is. I recommend you to read older literature about Playstation emulation, and also to go through PlayStation emulation forums. Google is not some kind of oracle, it isn't always right and you can't use it as the one and only judgment for notability.

In the end, ePSXe is definitely notable. As proof that I'm real: website : tails92.sepwich.com, email: tails92 at gmail dot com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.70.198.155 (talk) 14:20, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Existence does not equate to notability, but, however, the below reasons do establish notability :) MuZemike 14:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above reasons sound pretty good for notability. It's unfortunate (though inevitable) that us Wikipedians as a whole are far more eager to apply rules than we are able to make good rules. But the sources below are good too, so this is just quibbling. --Kiz o r 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per [1], [2], [3], [4], and [5]. Joe Chill (talk) 14:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep This used to be one of the only two usable emulators, if i remember correctly. Bob A (talk) 14:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Further links: GameStar, multiple Google Books mentions, multiple Google Scholar mentions. SharkD Talk 03:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my response to the IP above. MuZemike 14:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to a sudden lack of reasons not to. Shouldn't there be a way to address reference problems without attempting deletion? --Kiz o r 17:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Infinitely Strong Keep: Best PS emulator around.TruthServer (talk) 01:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by above users. Suggest Snow Keep? --Taelus (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By sources found. Clicking on Google News search above, shows plenty of hits for it. The first one is a review at Techtree which states at the beginning "ePSXe is the best free PlayStation emulator". It is clearly notable. Please search for references in Google news and elsewhere BEFORE nominating an article. Dream Focus 23:18, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did search Google (both web and News), and I did not see the sources provided above (thank you for finding those). Please do not jump to such biased conclusions. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 05:39, 1 December 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.