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 no consensus. PeterSymonds (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gens (emulator)[edit]

This article makes no assertion of its notability, and I highly doubt it has any. The article is also written somewhat like an advertisement, showing off mostly the features of the emulator and no real world connections. I don't think any amount of cleanup can help this article, and so I nominate it for deletion here. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 03:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not going to make a judgment yet whilst I have a good look at the article, but I am sure this is the most well known Genesis/Mega Drive emulator, so it has implications for all these articles in this category: Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis emulators, and possible emulators themselves. --tgheretford (talk) 07:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tghe is right, but I'm still not convinced Sceptre ^(talk) 15:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as much as I wouldn't like to, there is currently no reliable sources in the article that is essential to provide evidence of notability. As for gaining sources, this may be difficult. A search on Google shows that any hits for the emulator is from self-published sources or download links. Therefore, it would not be possible to assert notability. Sadly, this seems to apply with every emulator (possibly aside from Virtual Console, which does have secondary sources), including the most well known emulators. After this AfD, it may be worth discussing this issue with the relevant WikiProjects to ensure almost all emulation software articles are reliably sourced or deleted through AfD. --tgheretford (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:54, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Tghe-retford's vote and the implications behind it. This issue should be settled. JuJube (talk) 02:16, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This emulator was apparently featured and won some sort of distinction from the popular UK print mag Retro Gamer.[1] ~~Someone who has a copy of the issue mentioned could provide verification.~~ Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I located a copy of the magazine and added the reference to the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep, I myself use this emulator. Shadowkinght Talk Hi 18:51, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So? How is this relevant? Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The issue here might be that there isn't really a lot which can be written about it, but it's regularly covered in print magazines (retrogaming and PC gaming alike) as the best-of-breed Mega Drive emulator so it evidently passes WP:N. I think I've even got the issue of Retro Gamer mentioned by ham Pastrami. As to the idea that "the issue should be settled", while the deletionist in me likes the idea of 95% of WP's emulator articles being deleted I wouldn't put any money on there being consensus for it. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then show me how it passes WP:N. Right now, the only sources there (and I'm talking about external links, since there's no actual references) are first-party. If you say that there's coverage, then prove it, because as it's written, there's no evidence of notability. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...}^{protector of all...} 22:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete The retrogamer article begins to establish notability, but the bar for inclusion is multiple reliable sources. From the looks of the retrogamer mention, it doesn't look like anyone else have given this more than a quick mention. Randomran (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the retro gamer source is substantial (and not just a quick mention on the coverdisk) then Gens can be mentioned in a broader article, per WP:N guidelines for subjects with a single, substantial source. (and I would suggest starting a List of console emulators for this, as there are many emulator articles with similar problems.) Marasmusine (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is already one here: List of video game console emulators. It could be expanded to include tables with all the information from the infoboxes or other important, verifiable information. The same can be said for other emulators: List of emulators and computer emulators: List of computer system emulators. --tgheretford (talk) 10:27, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be ok with merging. This might be the best move under the circumstances. While I recognize that sourcing is a real issue here, I also have serious concerns about the proposed cascade deletion of an entire category of articles because it's probably an excessive move in the long run. Some, perhaps even a majority of articles can be deleted but the stronger examples should be kept on a list or integrated into an article somewhere. For example, Gens could be mentioned at Sega Genesis#Emulation, if it comes to that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or, what about articles like this: Nintendo DS emulation, as long as they are sourced? --tgheretford (talk) 10:33, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep - Gens (emulator) is part of the Category:Sega Mega Drive/Sega Genesis emulators, if the Gens (emulator) article is deleted you might as well delete the entire category because I can't see how the other elements of that category are any different.⇨ EconomistBR ⇦ Talk 03:04, 25 May 2008 (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.