Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Console Classix (2nd nomination)


 * 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. "There's zero sources" is actually pretty much a mandate for deletion per WP:V. It's not enough that sources may exist, they need to be cited in the article to make it verifiable to readers. And if nobody has bothered to but any sources into the article during the two weeks of this AfD, nobody is likely to do so later.  Sandstein  06:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Console Classix
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It was nominated before due to a promotional tone. The issue I notice is that there is no evidence that this site is officially sanctioned by Nintendo, Sega and other parties. Even if the providers do own the games and/or systems, they do not necessarily own multiple copies (for example, owning one copy of Sonic but letting 20 people play it simultaneously is legally/ethically dubious), nor is their use specifically authorized in this matter (for example, a video game store can legally rent physical systems and software, but allowing a remote connection to an emulator is a different story). If the site worked differently (for example, Console Classix had a narrow list of partners like Ultra Games who specifically license their games for such use), I would understand. However, this is not what I have noticed. --LABcrabs (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep/Talk That's not really a reason to outright delete the article though. Deletion criteria in terms of copyright relates to the content of the article, not the subject. Perhaps something to bring up in the talk page. Additionally there are some secondary sources such as articles from Vintage Computing and GamesIndustry. RegistryKey(RegEdit) 02:56, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  MT Train Talk 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - Legal issues regarding the service isn't really a deletion rationale, if I'm understanding correctly. The biggest issue for this article, is it's complete lack of sourcing. The user above seems to have highlighted some sources, which fit this bill. Promotional language can be removed from an article without deletion, provided it still meets WP:GNG after it's removed.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to a keep (maybe weak?) with these results in the VG search engine. The rationale the nominator presents are not relevant to whether a topic should be deleted from Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's zero sources.  -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The other commentators do list some sources. The issue is to see if the site is still notable and if it's worth covering on Wikipedia. --LABcrabs (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.