Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FakeNES


 * 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 redirect  to List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators; the content is still available in the history to perform a merge. While the emulator may not be notable, it appears to be important, and it would be a shame to fully lose the content. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 21:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

FakeNES

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Multiple serious problems. This article fails to establish notability, lacks any reliable sources as all of the references point to original research and web forum postings, no reliable nor primary sources can be found on the web or in printed material, and literally half of the edits to this article have been made by the author himself (who goes by both Siloh and Randilyn.) Without reliable sources, this fails WP:COS. Strongly recommend delete or merge to List of NES emulators. The muramasa (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Merge to the list, but am not against full deletion either. --Izno (talk) 18:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of Nintendo Entertainment System emulators. There it can include links to the Sourceforge site. MuZemike (talk) 21:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The project does not make a convincing case for notability and appears to be largely outdated and abandoned, meaning it doesn't stand to gain any notability either, and also being as such it's of minimal usefulness to readers. WP:SAL discourages the inclusion of non-notable items in a list article, hence I am reluctant to merge. That said, the current list needs some serious pruning. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not because I've been involved in the project, but because all of these emulator articles have been considered for deletion in the past, and we had a rather large war over it.  Please, there's no need to do it again, we decided to keep all of the articles in the end anyway, and it was just a huge waste of time.  Perhaps you need to brush up on your Wikipedia history before nominating articles for deletion. Also, did you check the homepage?  The project was abandoned for a time in September, but it is no longer, and a completely new version is coming. Regards. Randilyn (talk) 04:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to quickly debunk most of your reasons for deletion.
 * Multiple serious problems. - I would not call any of them "serious", try a little less drama.
 * This article fails to establish notability - Please make a Google search before assuming such things. FakeNES is one of the oldest and most well known emulators in existence.  Just because you don't know anything about emulation doesn't mean it isn't notable - it's just not notable in your book because you have no idea what you're talking about.
 * lacks any reliable sources as all of the references point to original research and web forum postings - I've been told by several Wikipedia editors that I was always doing a good job on the few occasions that I edited the article, and that it was fairly well-established.
 * no reliable nor primary sources can be found on the web or in printed material - You really didn't look, did you? I guess me or someone else is going to have to get a list of links for you.  Wikipedia editors are lazy.
 * and literally half of the edits to this article have been made by the author himself (who goes by both Siloh and Randilyn.) Without reliable sources, this fails WP:COS. - Again, other editors that I have spoke to in the past disagree with you, and I stated on the Discussion page that my editors were only for technical purposes, to make sure the article was correct. These edits were kept unbiased and neutral, to-the-point and minimal. (I would also like to point out that Siloh and Randilyn are not the same person, it's just that alot of people have worked on the project and that it has had several primary authors. Please, know what you're talking about before making accusations.).
 * Sorry for any drama on my part friends. It is a bit disappointing, and frustrating that we have to go through this time and time again here on Wikipedia, all because of some random editor who pops up and doesn't like an article. However, if the rest of you vote for delete or merge, I will agree with you. But I still wanted to take the time to debunk any false information that was being stated simply because someone didn't know what they were talking about. Randilyn (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Hi, I appreciate your passion on this subject, but it has not addressed any concerns. First, it is the article authors' job to cite reliable sources to verify claims and to establish notability. This article has no references other than to the project's homepage and web forums. Please read WP:RS for what is considered acceptable, and provide any links if you can -- I was unable to find any myself. Second, as for "searching Google" to establish notability, please see WP:NUMBER. Even if we ignore that rule, this software has ~18,000 hits, whereas notable software such as VMware average ~34 million. Even if that were not the case, popularity does not establish notability. Third, I understand it may feel like targeting, but please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I realize there are hundreds of other non-notable emulator articles on Wikipedia, and I'm doing my part to clean that up. I can assure you that it is not an enjoyable task. Also, I'm sorry for falsely identifying you as also being Siloh before. The muramasa (talk) 09:30, 13 July 2008 (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.