Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cxbx


 * 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. The consensus here is that this emulator is not notable at the present time. Once it's completed (and assuming it gets some coverage) this article can be recreated. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Cxbx

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

No assertion of notability through reliable, published sources. WP:VG reliable sources search yield only forum hits and blogs. Teancum (talk) 00:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 *  Speedy Delete - G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion. This is a non-notable product with no connection to notable developers or companies.  It has no reliable sources at all.  It plays 4 games, and even then, it does it poorly (no sound or network capability).  It is an WP:ADVERT plain and simple.   -Addionne (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This product has been mentioned in Slashdot. Does that make it notable? If you would look for more references to it online you would probably find because it was the first Xbox Emulator that played a commercial game. The previous reasons given to delete the article would apply to most of the emulators out there. So if your above reasons are valid you should also check and delete most of the other emulator-related articles. You can get started here: . It is also mentioned in a book, and another book: .   Ahtabai (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Slashdot can have user-submitted content, meaning anyone can add news, thus making it an unreliable source. As far as the books go, they are nothing but extremely passing mentions, which do not provide significant coverage.

--Teancum (talk) 16:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * What justifies the other emulator articles. There seem to be a lot of them that would be categorized as non-notable product. Will you mark them for deletion too? Ahtabai (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC) — Ahtabai (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * The books add some minor credence - enough to make me remove speedy from my delete above - though I am not sure I would call it significant coverage. As Teancum says, it looks like those are relatively passing mentions.  One puts it in context as a 'good place to start' - but the other is referring to another project (OpenXDK) and simply mentions that one of the members of that project has also worked on CXBX, which it refers to as CXBE.  A quick check shows these companies have some editorial control over what is published (not totally self-published) but someone with more knowledge in that field would have to weigh in on that.
 * As for the List of video game console emulators, I'd encourage you to take a look and see why what about these articles? is not generally considered a valid argument in deletion discussions. -Addionne (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Your assertion of WP:ADVERT is unjustified by the text of the article. It seems to be WP:NPOV to me. I'm unsure about notability. &mdash; HowardBGolden (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment All the other articles about emulation should be reviewed, and most deleted since they don't comply to Wikipedia's rules. Like Dxbx. It's still in development and the versions that have been published don't play commercial games. I would suggest merging Dxbx with Cxbx under Xbox Emulation. Ahtabai (talk) 16:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment How good are these articles? Ahtabai (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.  Snotty Wong   confess 17:51, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. This emulator appears to be a work in progress, barely plays any games (with no sound or network), and is used by virtually no one.  Snotty Wong   babble 17:54, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Ahtabai, care to disclose your interest in this article? Your only significant contributions are to Cxbx and Dxbx, and their corresponding AfD's.  You have also tagged this article for rescue despite it being pretty clear that reliable sources do not exist which cover the emulator in detail.  Are you involved in the development of either of these emulators?  If not, why have you come to WP to create these articles?  Snotty Wong   squeal 18:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I am involved in the development of Dxbx. Dxbx is a derivative work of Cxbx. Cxbx is the only Xbox emulator known to play more than 1 commercial game. It is still under development. However, I'd like to note that I did not create the Cxbx page; it was created some years ago. I once tried to create a page for Dxbx, but desisted due to conflicts of intrest (that's why I haven't even commented on it). The sources I cited before are not reliable? Most news of this emulator have already faded since its development was more active in 2003-2004. Do you have a source to state that "it is used by virtually no one"? Or is that your opinion? Ahtabai (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It's common sense. I would be quite surprised if there were millions of people who regularly use a pre-alpha video game emulator that can only play 4 games with no sound or networking capabilities, especially when the development of the emulator appears to have been abandoned.  Do you have a source to state that it is widely used?  Snotty Wong   soliloquize 21:27, 22 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable as software goes. Click on the Google news search, and you find plenty of results, mostly in Spanish.  Using Google translator on the first result  I see they talk about this emulator, and demonstrate a major commercial game that runs quite well on it.   D r e a m Focus  00:41, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised that your keep rationale would be a glorious combination of WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:GHITS, and a turkish website with a 2-paragraph description of the software which doesn't provide WP:SIGCOV. Snotty Wong   converse 19:05, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Guys, can we keep it neutral here for once? no offense, but this isn't the first AfD where the two of you have bantered back and forth.  If you want to make a point fine, but stay away from WP:NPA. --Teancum (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Relax. There were no personal attacks in my last statement.  Also, while there seems to be a general perception that Dream and I have "bantered back and forth" on numerous AfD's, that perception is false and I would be surprised if you could find more than one or two AfD's where Dream and I actually had a back and forth discussion with one another.  Snotty Wong   squeal 00:42, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Snottywong, you might think about toning down the sarcasm if you feel you are being misunderstood, I'm just saying.... --Nuujinn (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Others have commented on him attacking the ARS and various people within it. He does seem to be commenting on the editor instead of the content of the message here.  Anyway, my argument wasn't about Google hits, it was about news coverage found in Google news search.  All those sites are considered valid news sites by Google, and seem legitimate enough to be considered reliable sources for Wikipedia.  And two paragraphs is quite significant.  The article was about the software.  Most software reviews aren't long, since there isn't much to say about them that requires more than two paragraphs.   D r e a m Focus  23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Dream Focus's link posted at the top of this fork should pass WP:RS since, by the translation anyway, it has a street address, which typically is taken as a sign of reliability. However I just don't think one write up covers it. If anything it's on the extremely small side of significant coverage, but it still is just a short writeup - not much to it.  It's sort of a "this exists" type of writeup. The intro paragraph and the one after the Turok picture are the only ones that talk about Cxbx.  The third talks about emulators in general, and the fourth gives the Xbox specs.  After that it's all PS2 emulator stuff.  If there was at least one more article that provided WP:SIGCOV I'd say this would be a worthy supplement, but alone it's just not enough. --Teancum (talk) 16:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, I don't see this meeting the bar for notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:19, 24 October 2010 (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.