Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PCSX2


 * 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. Drmies (talk) 02:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

PCSX2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This program does not establish notability through detailing its cultural impact with the inclusion of reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of primary production details and technical details better suited to Wikia. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary. TTN (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Reviews from Geek.com (Ziff-Davis), ZDNet, PC World, Micro Mart (Dennis Publishing), Tech2 (Network 18).  It seems notable, though I had to do quite a bit of searching to get this many hits, and I never heard of some of the sources before.  Nonetheless, they all seem to be reliable sources, and I included publisher info in case anyone wants to validate it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:05, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Can those really be stated to truly establish it as a notable topic? Most of those sites seem to go over emulators pretty regularly, giving only brief overviews. Three of them are pretty much only confirming that it exists, much like a few other dozen programs. Two of them can count as reviews, but it really doesn't look like anything besides a couple brief sentences saying "it does stuff" can be gotten out of them. The overall coverage doesn't really seem to be widespread enough if sites with some focus on reporting most emulator-related news are the only ones available. They could certainly help the topic of Video game console emulator, or even Playstation console emulator should it get to that point, in showing their widespread appeal, only if people weren't so caught up in making these giant manuals and instead looked at it from a more scholarly perspective. It is a pretty interesting topic, but I guess people care more about which DirectX version works best. TTN (talk) 10:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I generally agree with you, but "this exists" is really all it takes to establish notability, though some hardliners might contest the presented articles as trivial. Consensus seems to indicate that this is what we want Wikipedia to be and these are the rules we want.  I would prefer a more scholarly approach, but Wikipedia seems to favor a pop culture approach.  This software is not as notable as I would like, and we'll never have a scholarly article on it, but it satisfies the absolute minimum requirements of notability.  That's enough for me to vote "keep".  Video game console emulator has much more potential for scholarly treatment, and it could probably reach Featured if someone worked very hard; however, I'm a PC game bigot, and you'd have to pay me to write a Featured article on console games/emulators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I fixed the tone, did some copy edits, converted long lists into concise tables, and added some sources. I think it looks pretty decent now, actually.  It's certainly not my best work, but it's enough to convince me that the article is salvageable and worthwhile.  I suspect that it will languish in Start-class limbo for the rest of its existence, but not every article has to be promoted to Good/Featured. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – This is a well-known emulator. I agree with NinjaRobotPirate; those sources are more than enough to make the article satisfy the general notability guideline. Four of the websites NinjaRobotPirate mentions above have their own articles on Wikipedia, so those sources do make the article notable. In addition, two sources are from August 2012 and one is from as recently as last month. I don't get the nominator's rationale, especially the line "There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so extended coverage is unnecessary.". If you don't think anybody is going to add the sources to the article, then do it yourself. Either that, or the nominator should have performed a more thorough search for third-party sources. Just because an article doesn't reference third-pary sources doesn't mean there aren't any. Hey  mid  (contribs) 18:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep – (first time posting to Wikipedia, so apologies for incorrect anything, and a disclosure - I'm on the PCSX2 team - avih). PCSX2 is the only working emulator for the best selling console of all time (as of now). It's open source and being downloaded thousands of times each day, so it's certainly well known (at least in emulation circles) and being used by many to relive the glory days of PS2. It improves on the PS2 in several ways, most notably adding HD resolutions for many games, and recently added wide-screen support for hundreds of games which originally didn't support it. I'm not sure I fully understand the arguments against keeping it listed, as I can interpret them as either 1. Not reputable/informative enough references (therefore suggesting the listing is inaccurate), or 2. Not important enough to be listed in Wikipedia. As for 1, I don't think anyone would claim that the listing is incorrect - it's open source and the development and status are in the open, and if it is incorrect, we (PCSX2 team) would be the first to want it more accurate. As for 2, as noted earlier, it's both a very important emulator due to its uniqueness and its high quality of emulation, and an innovative one by enhancing many old games with modern features (HD resolutions, wide-screen, quick-saves, pause, etc). If I could help with further clarifications or otherwise, please state your concerns. I'll be watching this space and will try to respond quickly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Notability on Wikipedia is a bit idiosyncratic. It's not necessarily a measure of importance or popularity, though they can certainly help.  Notability is generally established through the use of independent sources who have demonstrated a history of fact-checking.  This assures us that we're writing about a topic deserving of encyclopedic coverage, and that it has a chance to be both verifiable and neutral. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. So would the main claim here be that there are not enough informative reputable independent sources acknowledging/referencing/reviewing/etc PCSX2, therefore it could suggest that PCSX2 is not deserving of an entry? If that's not the case, I'd greatly appreciate if you could spell the argument out for me, and also, if still required, please let us know how could we help remedy this, if at all. Also, what is the main derivative of this argument? That the entry is lacking in accuracy? or that PCSX2 itself is maybe too insignificant for Wikipedia? etc. Thanks in advance, -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 10:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly right – we need more independent, reputable sources to identify PCSX2 as a significant topic worthy of an encyclopedia article. I dug up a few reviews, which provides a degree of notability, but more coverage would be helpful for both establishing notability and assisting our readers.  The best thing you could do is to locate (or solicit) coverage from professional journalists.  Blogs and other self-published sources are generally considered not to be reliable sources, as they lack editorial control and fact-checking.  An incomplete list of video game-related reliable sources is available at WikiProject Video games/Sources.  One important criterion is that the coverage must be substantial; trivial mentions, such as a single sentence, don't help to establish notability.  Sources can be offline, paywalled, or non-English.  I've already located five sources and added them to the article, which is usually enough to save articles from deletion.  Still, it would be helpful to have more, and one editor has expressed his dissatisfaction with the quality of my sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again very much for your helpfulness :) would the sources which Bosit(man) posted here be enough? (he's the guy which gave the interview at his links) How and when would a decision be taken on this, and would it also appear on this page? -avih. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.207.65 (talk) 12:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked around and found more sources for you people, most notable (and must be more than enough) the German version of the Chip magazine. Here you go: Chip.de PCSX2 reference, Digital Trends- Brandon Widder ,Tom's Guide - John Corpuz GoodGameHR , english version of the interview on our website, PS3news.com . Bosit (talk) 11:07, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That should be more than enough. Usually, deletion debates last for one week, though they can be relisted to get further opinions if there is no consensus.  I'll try to get around to adding these sources to the article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:06, 14 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &#124;  Uncle Milty  &#124;  talk  &#124;  11:51, 15 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep Many RS identified in the above discussion. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:41, 20 September 2013 (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.