Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GYM


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

GYM

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in a video game reliable sources custom Google search. There are no worthwhile redirect targets: not even mentioned in the FA-rated Sega Genesis article. czar 04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  04:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as my searches are not finding anything else better. SwisterTwister   talk  04:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - most video game emulators fail our notability standards, let alone a sound format for one (that exists only as a redirect itself.) Sergecross73   msg me  04:52, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge somewhere, at the very least, something like a generic Video game music file formats article that also covers the obsolete ones. "Notability" guidelines are kinda worthless for extremely relevant but semi-obscure subcultures like the video game music preservation scene. You'll never find a "reliable source", like a big news site, covering it. The GYM format has had its history in this scene, and just because it's an obsolete format doesn't mean its existence doesn't deserve note. Are we going to go about and delete everything that becomes obsolete now? Can we please stop with the ridiculous deletionism? Hell, even VGM (file format) seems to be a target of "notability guidelines" when it's an incredibly popular file format, on the context it exists in. &mdash; LucasVB | Talk 05:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of reliable, secondary sources. It doesn't exist to preserve "semi-obscure" subcultures/scenes. There are plenty of other websites for that. The notability guideline explains this, if you'll take a look. czar  05:36, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid CZAR is right. It's irrelevant whether GYM is obsolete -- but it's very relevant as to whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:57, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I didn't find evidence of reliable sources with significant coverage. There were lots of hits for "Genesis YM2612", but the ones I examined just mentioned it peripherally, and for the most part would not fulfill WP:RS. If LucasVB is correct in saying that we'll never find a reliable source, that indeed means the article should be deleted (although I should note that a "big news site" isn't the only type of reliable source). No reliable source means no content, and no article. --Larry/Traveling_Man (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect to General José María Yáñez International Airport (as the sole topic with "GYM" as an abbreviation or more specifically, airport code) as no coverage and unlikely to have any more coverage. Esquivalience  t 15:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to General José María Yáñez International Airport); not a notable file format. I found one mention of GYM in a forum discussion, that's it. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 06:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Yamaha YM2612 as this file format is specific to this sound chip. ~Kvng (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But "GYM" isn't mentioned there once. The airport acronym would appear to be the better redirect target of the two. czar  01:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * OK then merge the content into Yamaha YM2612 and then redirect GYN to the airport. The point is that the article should not just be deleted. The details can be worked out after AfD has closed. ~Kvng (talk) 16:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * But what do you merge when there's zero sources to verify any of the content? Sergecross73   msg me  18:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the quality of the material is compatible with the current state of Yamaha YM2612. ~Kvng (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you're a big proponent of merging further unsourced material to a largely unsourced article? Sergecross73   msg me  13:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I support keeping unsourced material as per WP:UNSOURCED. Unsourced is not a valid reason for deletion. ~Kvng (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ... the link supports Serge's point, not yours. The latter claim is a red herring—no one is arguing that position. We're apparently not getting through here so I see no reason to continue. czar  18:28, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, precisely. UNSOURCED (more commonly referred to as WP:BURDEN) is actually saying that if someone is challenging content (myself, majority of the AFD's participants), then its the BURDEN of the person who wants to keep it (Kvng) to provide sourcing, or it shouldn't be included. So basically, if content is challenged and cannot be sourced, then it shouldn't be included. Which is my argument here. I'll stop as well though, as I can't imagine a closing Admin would advocate in favor of merging content that cannot be sourced. Sergecross73   msg me  20:19, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Participants here have challenged whether the subject is notable enough for a stand-alone article and I appreciate that. I don't think this subject meets WP:GNG but if there's a reasonable merge target, we're obliged look at that as an alternative to deletion.
 * I don't see that anyone has challenged existence of the subject or the coverage of it and that's what WP:BURDEN is about. If you beleive there's an error in the article we can discuss that (typically on the article's talk page) and we look for references to demonstrate whether or not changes need to be made to it. It would be easier to have discussion separate from AfD. ~Kvng (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Are you kidding me? How do you not see this this entire exchange as challenging the content? Do you need a formal declaration or something? Alright, here it is. If there isn't a single source documenting these facts, then Wikipedia should not be documenting it either. Please provide a source verifying anything you'd want to merge, because I haven't seen anything that verifies anything in the article. I don't know what of this is real, or just made up. Sergecross73   msg me  22:46, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, please assume good faith, I am not kidding you. Here's the official manual on the file format. This should be adequate to satisfy WP:V for this information. ~Kvng (talk) 03:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * And if you read that source, you'd see that it's a clone of the Wikipedia article. (Was "Project Gutenberg Self-Publishing Press" not a dead giveaway?) This is a waste of time. czar  11:29, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. ~Kvng (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2016 (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.