Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenEmulator

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 no consensus. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OpenEmulator

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

Not notable, just an ad. Content is just a POV list of features. All Google hits are just web pages for the product itself or announcements by the developer. Not a significant product, not important. Doesn't deserve an article. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete I'm inclined to keep this, as emulators, even with poorly written articles, are an interesting topic. However they have to make some effort at writing style, sourcing and demonstrating notability. This one just isn't trying. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Please keep this. There are numerous hits on Google (see), which indicate the widespread knowledge under professionals (I mean people who know something about emulators). I do agree emulators are an interesting topic. I'm from Belgium and even I know it. Also, the Dutch Wikipedia has an article about OpenEmulator. I will try to make this article more neutral and wikify it a bit. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 07:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't mean it's notable enough to merit an article. Most of the hits on the first page of results (via Google) are from the developer of OpenEmulator. This software just hasn't garnered much attention. I wouldn't be opposed to an article sometime in the future when it gains more notability. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:00, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have also edited the article to keep only the barest necessary descriptions. --Gortu (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is a keep vote then? The article doesn't have to be bare and, as a matter of fact, shouldn't. It just needs to be

NPOV and needs to demonstrate why it's notable, by verifiable third-party references. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 22:49, 23 August 2012 (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.