Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format


 * 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 (non-admin closure)Oo7565 (talk) 08:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)" no consensus per DRV. IronGargoyle (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Ultra 64 Sound Format

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

This article should not e part of Wikipedia. Its subject is unencyclopedic by nature. While it is cool that a format exists to play Nintendo 64 music, "cool" does not establish WP:N. Moreover, there are no citations in this article to establish any of its claims, which is a big problem for WP:V. A Google search gave 800 results which were, again, primarily forum and blog posts from non-professionals. it's fairly certain the format exists, given anyone can download and test the files lined. Unfortunately, the links appear to be the same as in several other music article, suggesting vanity. None of the links meet WP:RS. This article should be deleted. If the facts change at some point in the future, a new article could be created. The muramasa (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This subject most definitely is encyclopaedic in nature. As you note, there are a lot of ghits and many of them are blog posts - but there are enough other references in there which appear to establish notability. The blog posts suggest a large user community. Ros0709 (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You should review WP:N. There is no substantive content in reliable sources. Wikipedia defines reliable sources as requiring editorial integrity, which forum posts and most blogs which mention this software lack. Also, archives of USF packages and sites hosting the software for download fail as they are not independent of the subject. While the presence of such discussion suggests there are users, the extremely low number and lack of coverage by reliable sources suggests any notoriety which this topic has is negligible at best. The muramasa (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why is this notable?  I have no idea, and the article didn't tell me!  --  JediLofty UserTalk 10:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contrary to your other music formats proposed deletions, this is an actual existing format, with plugins, support in various players, and actual rips available to the public. Just for the sake of information, it should be kept, which it's probably the main reason of existence for this article, not vanity. Lack of references in reliable sources, or coverage by professionals is not a reason, by its very nature, USF is an amateur effort, so a future mention in the New York Times is quite improbable. Not that such mention would warrant something to be "notable" or "encyclopedic", otherwise we would have to flag for deletion half of the Wikipedia.

It seems the format is mentioned in a IEEE article if you want a reliable source. Other reasons for the notability of such format are insight on how the Nintendo 64 sound system works, and preservation reasons, as this format warrants the archiving of game soundtracks which lack a proper physical release in stores, apart from allowing listening to those soundtracks without having a physical console or an emulator around, even using portable players, either using transcoding or by the means of future releases of Rockbox. --Lashiec (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That this format exists does not somehow nullify the numerous problems with this article, nor does the presence of rips made by a handful of authors. Thank you for the IEEE source, though it should be used to support the content of the article to establish the credibility of the content, not the existence of the article itself. However, I still do not see how the IEEE article does anything to resolve the numerous problems with meeting WP:N and WP:RS, unless you were to rewrite this entire article to be based on the content of the IEEE source. The muramasa (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep – If this format is legitimate, then it should be included. It would just need some cleanup and expansion. MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not maintain articles on every single file format. For example, the AbiWord file format, .abw, does not have its own article. However, he AbiWord article does have a line to mention the format's existence. Perhaps you should consider stripping this down to relevant, verifiable information and adding it into the Nintendo 64 article. The muramasa (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's certainly a viable alternative. MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"
 * Keep or merge - the concept is real (see IEEE link above), so the article gives information which could be useful to information seekers. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 08:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - it may be real, but is it notable? -- JediLofty UserTalk 09:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sorry, are we editing Google or Wikipedia? The issue at hand is whether an obscure format with a handful of users and limited Google references is notable enough for an encyclopedia, and, assuming it is notable as per WP:N, does it have reliable sources (WP:RS) from which the article draws for its content? The IEEE article is mentioned above, but its content is not used to support or source any information in this article. The muramasa (talk) 10:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, if an article is useful to more than very few informations seekers, then the article makes Wikipedia a better place and should be kept, WP:N or whatnot. If you feel uncomfortable not adhering to some or other guideline, feel free to use WP:Ignore all rules. Kind regards, Ryttaren (talk) 18:14, 4 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.