Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video game emulators


 * 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 speedy keep per WP:SK. A valid rationale for deletion is not present. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America1000 06:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

List of video game emulators

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

People come to Wikipedia as a starting point for their quest for information. When they find this article, they see consoles like the Xbox and Dreamcast are not listed, leading them to believe emulators for those consoles do not exist. This article does more harm than good because of that. Simply adding those emulators is not possible due to notability policies.

If Wikipedia can't describe this list well, it better doesn't describe it at all. Letting users search Google to find a list that's usable for them is better than offering them a list that pretends to be something it's not. Alexis Jazz (talk) 18:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep - Nothing resembling a valid reason for deletion given. Just like the list of guitarists or list of social networking websites do not list every person who plays guitar or every social networking website that exists, so this is WP:NOT a directory of every emulator that exists or otherwise an Emulator Wikia. That you don't like it is not a good reason for deletion. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:58, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * In the case of something like list of guitarists one could easily guess that list doesn't contain all the guitarists in the world. For the list of video game emulators that is not so clear. Your average reader (who doesn't know about WP:ETC) expects to find all usable emulators on this list, or at least the best emulators for each platform. By not listing those because of our internal policies, we are misleading the reader. I'm not saying we have to start including non-notable entries, we just have to stop misleading readers. That goal can also be achieved by deletion. As for the article contents, they would actually better fit as a category. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep per WP:LISTN. The consensus of multiple Talk page discussions has been to limit entries to subjects that are otherwise notable and have articles, and that's exactly what's done here. Woodroar (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This is only an argument not to add non-notable entries. Adding those non-notable entries is one solution, but clearly one the community can't live with. Another solution is to delete the list altogether. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN. I also boldly added a Dynamic list template and stated that the list was non-exhaustive. That appeared to be the problem the nom stated, so it should be made clear. SemiHypercube ✎ 19:59, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Partially. It's still nothing but a glorified category. Going over the history, I noticed it was was once useful. It would also appear that some attempts were made to reach a middle ground, but after the edit wars ended, the article got indefinite protection and all that was left was this useless list. LISTN doesn't provide any argument for keeping a list that is just duplicating a category. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. WP:NOTDUP covers that. Regardless, you're still yet to provide even one reason for deletion. Please see WP:Deletion policy. It not being good enough, not being what you want it to be, that you don't think it's useful, that you think readers want something different ... none of these are reasons for deletion. They are reasons to make arguments to change the page, which may or may not be taken up. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 20:15, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't about "not being what I want it to be" or "readers want something different". Readers expect something different and as a result of that, they are being misled. If anything you're just highlighting an issue with WP:Deletion policy. It doesn't literally say misleading or confusing pages are against policy, so they are totally okay. Although the catch-all "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia" may fit: a list that only serves to confuse readers isn't suitable for an encyclopedia. Alexis Jazz (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 00:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Procedural, no valid deletion rationale given by the nom. Incompleteness in a list is not grounds for deletion. Besides that, the other Keeps are spot on anyway. -- ferret (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2018 (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.