Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP128Emu


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

EP128Emu

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See also: Articles for deletion/EP32


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. Note that this is an emulator of the Enterprise 128 8-bit computer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What significant coverages can you find for Commodore and Spectrum emulation softwares? --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't delete: Third party source here This is not a self published material.
 * The link goes to the website of FLOSSzine, which bills itself as a fanzine. The cover and table of contents are provided, and EP128Emu does indeed appear to be listed.  However, zines are typically non-professional self-published works, which can't generally be used to establish notability.  What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do other articles on emulation softwares (eg. Commodore, Spectrum) fulfill your requirement? I don't think so. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Some of them do, and some of them don't. If you have any particular Wikipedia articles in mind which you think don't qualify as notable and verifiable through reliable sources, then please either discuss this on their respective talk pages, or, if you're fairly sure of yourself, submit them directly to Articles for Deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability?" Though zines can't GENERALLY be used to establish notability, how do you prove this zine also can't be used to establish notability? Do you speak Hungarian? "Generally" is not the same as "always". You should study these Flosszine papers to prove your statement citing from and referring to its content. You don't have to be expert of the area but at least you should speak Hungarian. It is really unjust that somebody like you decide to delete this article who neither speaks Hungarian nor knows anything about Z80 computers and their emulators. It would be very difficult for me to explain why I think Flosszine can establish the software's notability. You should study the Flosszine. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My, but you have a penchant for moving the goalposts! First one has to be an expert on emulators and 1980s computers to judge the noteworthiness of the article, and now one has to speak Hungarian as well!  Along with this is your implicit assumption that no one contributing to this deletion discussion could possibly meet all three criteria.  Well, contrary to your expectations, I happen to be an expert on 1980s computers, am well versed in emulation thereof, speak Hungarian fairly well, and, as an added bonus, am also familiar with Wikipedia's policies on notability.  And no, nothing on the FLOSSzine website leads me to believe that it counts as a reliable source establishing notability for EP128Emu.  I trust this now satisfies your appeal to authority-based arguments, and that you will therefore change your !vote to delete. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's you who are moving the goalpoints. In a personal message here you originally mentioned that a SELF-PUBLISHED Flosszine was not very reliable source. Then I said it was not self-made. Then you said the problem was not that it was self made but that it is a Flosszine. Írod, beszélsz magyarul. Szóval azért remélem, nem Te egyedül fogod eldönteni, a cikket valóban törölni kell-e, remélem, több ember szavazata fog dönteni, és köztük olyanok is lesznek, akik már láttak bekapcsolva Enterprise számítógépet és az emulátor debuggerét is használták már, és a gép történetéről (tehát jelentőségéről) is tudnak valamit. :D Attól, hogy erről a gépről kevesebben tudnak, mint pl. a C64-ről és ezért az emulátorát is kevésbé ismerik, nem írnak róla pl. könyvet, még nem feltétlen kevésbé jelentős. Az, hogy EP-re kevesebb szoftver jelent meg, mint pl. C64-re, nem minősíti magát a gépet, így az emulátort sem. Nyilván könnyebben írnak cikkeket is olyan dologról, ami jobban szem előtt van. Ebből nem következik, hogy ami nincs szem előtt, az már kevésbé jelentős. Mivel Magyarországon adtak el talán a legtöbbet ebből a gépből és a magyarok veszik a fáradságot és foglalkoznak vele, a friss "szakirodalom" nagy része főleg magyarul hozzáférhető. Ha el akarod dönteni, hogy ez a Flosszine mennyire hiteles, akkor tudnod kell magyarul. De ha annyira akarod (márpedig ezt nagyon akarod, azt látom), akkor töröltesd a cikket. --Szipucsu (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Igen, beszélek magyarul, de nem itt. When on the English-language Wikipedia, please always use English, no matter to whom you address your comments. This is so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. If the use of another language is unavoidable, please provide a translation of the comments. For more details, see Talk page guidelines. Thank you. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete: How many emulators exist that can emulate 3 machines (Enterprise, CPC, Spectrum) both in Windows and in Linux? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. Very few CPC and Spectrum emulators exist for Linux. (Not to mention Enterprise emulator.) If you don't accept its relevancy then you are not familiar in this area. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Notability, which discusses what factors to take into consideration for determining whether a subject is important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You will note that "number of machines emulated" is not one of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't delete: How many emulators (of any computer) have a debugger like this? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is. This statement of yours also proves you are not familiar in this area. Do you know at all what a debugger is? Maybe all emulation softwares have some debugger, its usability is not irrelevant at all from the point of view of its notability. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please refer to Notability, which discusses what factors to take into consideration for determining whether a subject is important enough to have an article on Wikipedia. You will note that "presence of a debugger" is not one of them. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't delete: I think the person who nominated this article for deletion is not an expert of old computers and their emulators. Only an expert could tell if this software is notable enough or not. To nominate the article for deletion you should be an expert of this area. Without finding any expert and having him check the notability of this software the article is not to be deleted. Enterprise is a computer like CPC, Spectrum or Commodore even if not so known; it was known in many countries where people use the emulator. That's why its emulator is also important. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If only an expert is qualified to determine the notability of a subject, then that subject cannot possibly be encyclopedic. We are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia here, not an experts' reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This way all the emulation software articles should be deleted and many-many articles. You don't have to be an expert but at least know something about Enterprise computer. Less people know Enterprise than C64 or ZX Spectrum but it is not a reason for not letting room for this computer and its emulator on a general-purpose encyclopedia. Enterprise 64/128 was made in the UK and sold in more countries in the '80s. Its emulator is as important as the Commodore, Spectrum etc. emulators. I am not an expert of this area either but at least I have some basic knowledge of the 1980's computers and their emulators. If you were not familiar in the history then you would delete the articles on the details of certain historical events? 1980's computers and their emulators do have room in the Wikipedia. If Enterprise were a computer I made and only my family used it and its emulator I would understand what you are talking about but EP is an internationally known computer as ZX Spectrum and Commodore. All the 1980's emulation software do have room in the Wiki. It is not an objective approach that Enterprise is less important because it is less known. greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that "many, many" articles need to be deleted because they do not meet Wikipedia's policies. But certainly not all the emulation software articles; just the non-notable ones.  Have you actually read Notability?  If so, you would have learned that it is not necessary to be an expert in a particular subject to determine whether or not that subject meets the notability requirements. –Psychonaut (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Please answer my question: as for the other emulation softwares for 1980's computers, what reliable sources do you think they are supported with? Please name some specific examples. Which of them are notable and why? Another question is if so many articles on emulators need deletion, is there any need for Emulator category on Wikipedia? greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 17:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your question is not relevant to this debate, so this is not the place to answer it. I have already repeatedly referred you to Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources.  Any article, whether it deals with an emulator or not, must meet these guidelines in order to remain on Wikipedia.  If you find an article that you feel is not supported by the requisite sources, you should nominate it for deletion.  The fact that someone hasn't done so yet is not an argument for keeping this article—please refer to OTHERSTUFF.  —Psychonaut (talk) 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * DO DELETE. If this is ever to come back to Wikipedia, we are going to need something: evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) 09:53, 5 February 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.