Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NO$GBA (2nd nomination)

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. The main argument against the preservation of this article is the lack of secondary sources. The article’s three sources – Nintendo DS Emulator Homepage, Emulator Zone and Kotaku.com – do not appear to meet Wikipedia’s definition as legitimate secondary sources. The two in-depth arguments in favor of keeping the article have acknowledged the problem with proper referencing, and unfortunately we cannot overlook that problem. The current article does not meet WP:RS requirements and, therefore, it is being removed. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NO$GBA

No coverage in secondary sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and not enough sourcesIrunongames • play 21:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chzz ► 15:53, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As usual, entries on emulators are very subjective. Their grey status inherently defines that they will get little coverage from secondary sources other than aficionado sites. As far as the importance of the emulator goes, I can say that it is reasonably important, even though other emulators have now surpassed in in terms of development. NO$GBA was still the first to emulate advanced Nintendo DS instructions, though coming up with sources for that is almost impossible once you discard change logs. --Sn0wflake (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per above. Rgood erm ote 22:37, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - to use Sn0wflak's rationale: "[emulators] will get little coverage from secondary sources other than aficionado sites." - there you go, then. This software has not received significant coverage from a reliable source: its mentions on emulator websites are either unreliable, insignificant, or forum chatter. Therefore this subject does not meet the general notability guideline and in fact would appear to be unverifiable. Marasmusine (talk) 15:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - a number of links were raised in the previous AfD, two of which are Kotaku and Eurogamer. Whilst these sites are reliable, both articles fairly short and seem to be of the "press release" variety (both were published on the same date, announcing the software's release.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak abstain. I am too emotionally involved with this emulator and its article to make a rational, logical, unbiased decision. 66.188.122.212 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Unless I'm mistaken, there were secondary sources listed in the first nomination. Ex. http://kotaku.com/gaming/top/first-nintendo-ds-emulator-running-commercial-roms-released-194244.php. http://www.ngemu.com/gba/nogba.php. http://nintendo-ds.dcemu.co.uk/no-gba-2-5b-gba-and-ds-emu-for-windows-78500.html. http://www.zophar.net/gba.html. Furthermore, a discussion at WP:VG showed how "reliable sources" are unlikely to ever exist for a subject in this matter. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_34#Video_game_emulator_articles_-_proposed_deletions. Why not just resend thi article to WP:VG instead? This one wasn't specifically debated on last time. 76.14.34.115 (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources. The above links show a "Wow they released it!" item with no signifcant coverage. The remainder consists of one sentence announcements with a dump of the release notes. I see no significant coverage here that would establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2009 (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.