Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hatari (emulator)


 * 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 keep. Tone 07:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Hatari (emulator)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable emulator. A WP:BEFORE brings up only a handful of sources that mention the project, but no significant coverage that satisfies WP:GNG. All references presently used link to the source code of the project. Lordtobi ( &#9993; ) 15:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 15:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

* Comment: I found this:"" But other than this, every other source seems to be a copy of Wikipedia. flowing dreams (talk page) 06:01, 22 October 2019 (UTC) *:: Ever since I've cited this source, I've seen its contents on Google Books once. I'm afraid I can't provide you with scans right now. If Google Books didn't give you what you want, you can try WikiProject Resource Exchange. I seem to remember this source consisted four pages dedicated to Hatari. flowing dreams ( talk page ) 09:43, 27 October 2019 (UTC) *::::I don't know how to interpret that. I don't go labeling things as "how-to" and "not how-to". (If, however, I wanted to write an in-depth coverage of a piece of software, I imagine it would consist of a lot of description of how things get accomplished.) I look for impact to determine whether an article should be kept. Here, I cannot make up my mind. But if it was ever kept, that book is a good historic record of how things were, in the case the app changed significantly. flowing dreams ( talk page ) 10:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Would it be possible for you to provide scans of the pages or a smmary of the content in question? Otherwise, it is difficult to tell whether it works towards GNG. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , indeed I see one page on Google books...and it looks like another how-to guide. } Of course some features mentioned along the way (e.g. that it runs on Windows and Mac), but the coverage is nowhere near "in-depth". Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 10:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Sources I found so far: two short paragraphs in an article about Atari emulation on Linux in micromart magazine (issue 1365, 4 June 2015, p. 68); somewhat more on heise.de in an article about emulation on Mac (Mac & i magazine, news, 03/2019 ); similar article on macwelt.de . Pavlor (talk) 09:33, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible for you to provide scans of the pages or a smmary of the content in question from the MicroMart issue? Otherwise, it is difficult to tell whether it works towards GNG. The two online articles are just how-to guides and contain no information about the software, really. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Two small paragraphs certainly is not broad enough coverage to satisfy GNG, you may find the magazine on archive.org. My search for some real reviews was unsuccessful do far. Too bad, it is really nice emulator (at least the Amiga version I´m using for years). Pavlor (talk) 11:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep : We seem to have found our WP:SIGCOV, can be really hard as offline and and subscription content can be a time consuming pain to dig out and somewhat easy to skip. From a practical point of view I might like to run a Atati emulator do its the sort of stuff I might try to ask wikipedia about to point me on some search options.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that we should work on the assumption of availability of [offline] sources that satisfy GNG/SIGCOV. Those online listed above are just how-to guides and don't add to SIGCOV, and I currently haven't found a way to acces either offline source to check on their quality. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; ) 07:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:59, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep: (No consensus void) The relist by was prior to letting the discussion run for 168 hours / 7 days and the nom. has now made comments above the Please add new comments below this line which I am not responding to.07:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
 * I didn't actually add a new comment, rather replied to yours. New comments/votes should be added below the relisting notice for proper chronological ordering, but everyone (including you) is free to discuss prior statements. For ease of discussion, of course, you can also reply to my above reply down here. Lordtobi  ( &#9993; )
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:04, 27 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Faster Than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-Bit Revolution is available as an ebook so Lordtobi can have immediate access. The relevant pages are 250–253, 255 and 278. Thincat (talk) 11:40, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Flowing dreams was blocked as a sock, so I've struck through their edits. Doug Weller  talk 10:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep TechRadar gives it ample coverage. Found that one quite easily.  I put the two magazines mentioned into Google translator and read that, and I believe that is significant coverage enough to meet the general notability guidelines.  I also notice that Raspberry Pi Projects For Dummies is one of the notable For Dummies series of books, and briefly mentions it and what it is.  Don't talk any about it though.  It is notable enough to be mentioned all over the place, so is well known.  A lot of books seem to mention it but many don't have a preview working on Google books so no idea how much is listed for it.  I believe the total coverage found so far proves it is notable enough for a Wikipedia article.   D r e a m Focus  15:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV per the sources provided by others here and in the article.4meter4 (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. WP:SIGCOV per WP:RS Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep There are some RS, albeit not in the quality I would like. Notability may be borderline, but there is no harm in keeping this. Pavlor (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (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.