Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU


 * 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. Tone 18:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

XQEMU

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )



Fails WP:GNG: non-notable emulator with no references based on reliable, third-party published sources. I looked for sources and found only a handful of trivial mentions, not the "significant coverage" that we require, plus the usual unreliable sources like forum posts and user-generated wikis. The subject may become notable in the future, of course, but we can always recreate the article at that time. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

XQEMU is a monumental achievement of software engineering. The Xbox is perhaps the most difficult to emulate console ever made, so the work of the QEMU and XQEMU teams cannot be understated - this an effort 18 years in the making. If you don't understand why software is notable for an encyclopedia, I encourage you to check out this list of pages for comparable emulators which are equally notable and similarly written and cited: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_emulators, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(emulator), or RPCS3, Dolphin, Cemu, PCSX2, PPSSPP, ZSNES, Xenia, Citra, ePSXe, Project64, Visual Boy Advance, and Nestopia.

Also, if you look at their history, you'll see that the nominating user is a serial hostile deletionist. I encourage you to please try to make articles better rather than trying to destroy them, and please don't waste the time of the people who actually do still try to make positive contributions to Wikipedia. Miserlou (talk) 18:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This article has the exact same level of citation as all of the other emulators listed. It's a software project, what do you expect, the New York Times? There are plenty of relevant blog articles and video demonstrations out there. I encourage editors to try to improve the page rather than delete it. Miserlou (talk) 18:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Here's the situation: XQEMU is _the_ XBox emulator, and will be going forward. It's the one that got it right, because it took the harder LLE approach whereas others took the "easier" HLE approach. It took 18 years. This also means that the article can discuss the specific difficulties of Xbox emulation and the differences in approach, which it does.I can't think of a more notable achievement in emulation, and the only reason that a person would think that this isn't notable is if they were ignorant of the subject matter. Miserlou (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Trivial mention in reliable sources.  Magnolia677 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Look, you can talk about how this is the most important emulator since sliced bread. If there are reliable, secondary sources that discuss this in depth, then post them. I cannot find any, including the ones used in the article. Valeince (talk) 20:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Just as an example, you could run twice as fast as Usain Bolt, but if you are the only person who says so, you shouldn't have an article on Wikipedia. If you are truly so good, then many reliable sources would surely write about you, the same can be said about this emulator.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 21:49, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Only trivial or primary mentions as far as I can tell.Slatersteven (talk) 22:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the author mentions a number of other articles about emulators; quite apart from WP:OSE, a number of those have exactly the same problem as this one. I don't see any reliable coverage on Xenia (emulator), PPSSPP, Nestopia, or VisualBoyAdvance, for example.  Others rely on a single RS (hardly major coverage).  Some (i.e. Dolphin (emulator), are well written. There's not a deletionist concept here, there's one that simply follows our policies on notability. Black Kite (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment A deletion now does not prevent the article subject from later becoming notable and then deserving of an article. Rivselis (talk) 02:02, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I also searched and summarized on the author's talk page. Indeed, it is a narrow population interested in the topic, and with few (if any) who _could_ write/publish referenceable reviews or commentary. In fact I was wanting to ask at Help Desk or elsewhere (suggestions?) how does WP handle topics completely understood by only a small group of people, yet which topics may be usefully checked out by a much larger general population? As in, what does this term mean?
 * Imagine that Penrose tiling was much shorter, rather cryptic, and did _not_ have 59 notes, 8 primary sources, 16 secondary, and 8 external links. Perhaps like this, as a poor example. Does one have to wait until 'everybody' knows what a L-system quasicrystal is before including a topic here? Shenme (talk) 05:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Notability means people outside a certain narrow group have noticed it. Everything is notable to those who care enough about it.Slatersteven (talk) 08:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, it's not even really that narrow of a topic. We have a List of video game emulators for similar subjects, and several entries have dozens of sources. This one is just rather unremarkable at the moment, or perhaps the devs don't spend much (or any) time reaching out to media. Woodroar (talk) 12:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. As much as I like seeing the emulation progress of various consoles (especially Yuzu, a Nintendo Switch emulator), there is no reliable sources that significantly covers this program, as the community pointed out, and so has to be deleted from article space. It might as well appear to be a case of WP:TOOSOON. While I have no comments about the behavior of the article creator, I'll say this: you can always use WP:REFUND to userfy/draftify the deleted article in question so you can continue improving it, or have its source code sent to you by email. theinstantmatrix (talk) 13:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete but Userify and bring back later. I would hope that as the XQEMU project continues, it becomes prolific and that the user-base drives more established coverage in third party sources. I think from what User:Miserlou has said, that will almost definitely occur if this is the monumental achievement he's selling it as. If so, then the articles will come. And when that happens, a wiki article will be justified. That's GNG for you. Wikipedia is a project to document things after they've happened and become notable, not before or during their happening.-- Shibboleth ink (♔ ♕) 15:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete claims subject matter expertise and asserts that "XQEMU is a monumental achievement of software engineering" without offering a shred of evidence from reliable sources. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Instead, Miserlou attacks the nominator as a "serial hostile deletionist", which is a stunning failure to assume good faith of fellow editors. Verifiability is a core content policy, and poorly referenced articles need to be either improved within a week or deleted. Ranting against editors who work to enforce our core content policies is a losing strategy. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  01:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete lacks the sort of coverage a notable endeavor especially the "one" that got it right as claimed above should have. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:44, 29 May 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.