Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenia (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 delete and redirect to Xbox 360. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia (emulator)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. I am unable to find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, even with the WikiProject Video Games custom Google searches. Xenia gets mentioned in plenty of reliable sources, but these are simply that: trivial mentions. It also appears on a few listicles, but most of them seem to be published by sketchy SEO affiliate sites. Then there are the press releases, download sites, forum posts, YouTube videos, and other low-quality sources you tend to find on software. What we need is significant and independent and reliable coverage and I'm not seeing it. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The emulator has been the primary subject of numerous articles written in reliable news outlets that extends beyond trivial mention. The following reliable sources have covered the subject in significant, non-trivial ways.

CinemaBlend

Polygon
VGR

PC Gamer, PC Gamer
DOSGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming, DSOGaming

--Odie5533 (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DSOG and CinemaBlend are unreliable, WccfTech situational, and the reliability of VGR, Happy Gamer and SegmentNext has not yet been assessed. Even then, reviewing these sources, it is clear that all of them (reliable and unreliable ones) are either rehashes of news bits ("Xena dev team has done X") or reports of one or another game now being playable on the emulator, usually from configurations by third parties. None constitute significant coverage of the emulator itself. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You declare CinemaBlend is unreliable, but Ars Technica, IGN, Newsweek, USA Today, Deseret News, Herald-Standard, The Canberra Times, Patriot-News, ScreenRant, DigitalSpy, and countless other news outlets rely on their reporting. I believe they are reliable. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:11, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CinemaBlend has been discussed at RSN and VGRS and found to be generally unreliable. But even if it wasn't, the source is unquestionably trivial: there's one sentence about Xenia that gives no real information, a pull-quote from the developer, and 5-6 paragraphs about game system architecture. Xenia is mentioned two more times in the article, but never with any detail. That's true of all coverage of Xenia, save for extremely niche, unreliable sources. And that's the point of GNG: if reliable sources can't be bothered to cover a subject in significant detail, why should we? Woodroar (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point of GNG. If we actually cared about removing articles that had essentially no reliable sources, then we would remove the hundreds of thousands of no-name athletes from this website. The GNG serves to pointlessly restrict this website. This article has more sources than 90% of Wikipedia articles. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:51, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The point of GNG is to stop Wikipedia from being flooded with thousands of articles that will never go beyond one or two sourcable sentences. As an encyclopedia, such restrictions (if you can even call them "restrictions") are perfectly reasonable. If you think that GNG should be changed, please bring the issue to GNG, not here. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, most of these sources only mentions Xenia in passing. None of them is actual about the emulator itself and doesn't provide enough significant coverage to establish notability. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Run-of-the-mill news articles and articles detailing how one specific person got one specific game to run on the emulator does not pass GNG. Even the few sources that focus on the topic fail to go into any detail about it. IceWelder [✉] 09:24, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep IceWelder pulled up good sources and I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. It's notable enough. Bluedude588 (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You probably skipped a line there. I did not pull up any sources but actually explained why those given by Odie5533 are far from sufficient to demonstrate notability. If have no reliable sources with which we could build a proper article for it, we shouldn't have an article at all. Please try to use the reliable sources from Odie's comment to rewrite the article. You will find that, beyond like one feature, some run-of-the-mill news and a bunch of games that have been emulated through it, there is nothing significant about the engine itself that you could possibly write from these sources alone. IceWelder [✉] 12:57, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom and IceWelder. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:50, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:20, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP The coverage of it in Polygon and elsewhere is enough to prove this is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 19:32, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually checked the sources? Are they not WP:RUNOFTHEMILL or WP:PASSING cases? Do they cover WP:SIGCOV? No, they don't. In terms of reliable sourcing (not considering thr aforementioned issues), the article is currently complete. I went over exactly these issues above multiple times. IceWelder [✉] 19:35, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding? Two sources that don't even offer significant coverage doesn't constitute notability. The subject is best left as just a mention on the article for the Xbox 360, it doesn't need its own page. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:28, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Other coverage such as https://www.polygon.com/2014/3/29/5560764/video-shows-xbox-360-emulation-pc https://www.pcgamer.com/see-gears-of-war-2-fable-2-lost-odyssey-silent-hill-downpour-and-more-emulated-on-pc/ Click on those two links. Dream Focus 23:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I clicked the link, and looking at the sources, it makes me wonder whether you actually clicked on them. The first source is already in the article, and is a 1:1 rehash of information provided by the dev. The second source only says that Xenia "has a new update" and then goes on to talk about someone completely unrelated has used the game to get an unrelated game to run somehow. Both sources were discussed above already and both sources do not constitute significant coverage, but you probably knew that already. IceWelder [✉] 05:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Two sources don't automatically make something notable on Wikipedia. Could not find much from reliable publications, either. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 20:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no significant coverage. You can't build an article on two sources. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No notable sources, it's a topic that could be mentioned on the xbox 360 page itself. QueerFilmNerd^talk
Redirect to Xbox 360, where the subject can be covered. JOE BRO 64 23:19, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at least Redirect to Xbox 360. The article appears to suffer the same problems as the one in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XQEMU exactly a year ago. Not counting the Red Dead Redemption fan remaster project, even after looking it up on Google via a link above, I can't find any sources that are more than just "Game(s) emulated on PC/playable on Xenia". theinstantmatrix (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Xbox 360 as it does not seem to meet WP:GNG. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — but most importantly revert to the state before the article was made deletion-worthy by removal of all content coming from the most informative sources (first-party ones, simply because gaming websites considered reliable do not care about information that was deleted from the article because it's not their purpose and goal) in this context. Triang3l (talk) 11:06, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to the closing admin: This user has disclosed a conflict of interest. IceWelder [✉] 11:23, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — It is the only tool able to efficiently imitates Xbox 360 on PC 1 2, it is the best Xbox 360 emulator for PC. 3456 It is capable of playing approximately 170 Xbox 360 games. 7 There is taken huge rigor, compared to other articles, look to other articles in Free emulation software. For example 1964 (emulator) and others? Xenia is also on Emulator-zone.com and SourceForge.net. In my opinion, the "Template:More citations needed" would be enough. Jirka.h23 (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You know the template will require you to provide reliable sources for significant coverage to establish notability, right? Something that you have not done, both on the article and here. TheDeviantPro (talk) 16:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 05:58, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Significant indepth coverage is missing. We have fans and COI editors in this afd, as well as "it's useful" type keep votes. Primary and unreliable sources do not establish notability. I'm fine with a redirect as well, or TNT it first then redirect. -- ferret (talk) 18:36, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.