Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NESticle

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. I additionally recommend to continue discussing the possibility for a merge in the ongoing discussion. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 16:28, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NESticle

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

Does not appear to meet general notability criteria. Short article with very little in the way of sources. Has been tagged for citations since 2007. Recommended for merge with List of video game emulators. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 15:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without some reliable sources, there really is nothing to merge. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:49, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I would have closed this per nom's request as speedy keep #1 since nom proposes a non-deletion action (merge), but it's no longer eligible due to the current case for deletion. (Also see related merge discussion.) czar · · 20:37, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Wikipedia article's lack of sources doesn't mean that sources don't exist. NESticle was a pioneering emulator and one of the biggest of the 90s. Ars Technica describes it as "easily the NES emulator of choice [in the 1990s]", and 1UP.com credits it for introducing "'NES movie' support -- its term for demo recording and playback". Even the relatively mainstream/populist Wired discusses it. I think there's actually fairly good evidence that the topic meets the GNG. Outright deletion seems like much more harm than good in this case. -Thibbs (talk) 04:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- A few more RSes:
  - 1UP.com discusses its importance to the homebrew scene for graphical hacks
  - Chris Kohler's 2011 Retro Gaming Hacks: Tips & Tools for Playing the Classics (ISBN 1449303900) makes the case for NESticle as the best emulator for use with older computers (486 and earlier)
  - Listed in a September 2004 SPIN feature as a milestone in the history of the rise to popularity of video game music as a genre.
  - Retro Gamer Issue #1 credits it as the first NES emulator in its "Emulation Nation" article.
  - More minor RS coverage can be found in (1) Jaime E. Muscar's law review article "A Winner is Who? Fair Use and the Online Distribution of Manga and Video Game Fan Translations" (printed in 9 Vand J. Ent. & Tech. L. 223. Fall 2006.) notes NESticle's role as one of the most popular of the early emulators; (2) Academically there are several theses and such that cover the software including Lori Wu's 2002 Stanford University prospectus "Game and Game Console Emulation: The Preservation of Video Game History" and Matthew Visyak's 2005 Allegheny College thesis "Terrorism/Capitalism"; and (3) Eric Vanderburg's 2003 research paper, "Copyright Protection and Infringement Technologies" mentions it among a handful of popular emulators. A similar source listing it among other popular emulators is Radford Castro's 2004 "Let Me Play: Stories Of Gaming And Emulation" (ISBN 1587363496). Another is in the New Straits Times article "Emulators to revive classic arcade games" (24 October 2002).
- There also seems to be a decent bit of coverage among the situational sources as well, though I haven't gone through them in any depth. And of course in a case like this, where technical details are unlikely to be covered in the RSes, official readmes and other Bloodlust Software releases could be used as SPSes. Anyway my conclusion is that although perhaps less than overwhelmingly notable, there are enough RSes for stand-alone purposes and since the topic is of historical significance it should neither be deleted nor merged. -Thibbs (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I'm still of the opinion that the article should be kept rather than deleted or merged, my conversation with Hellknowz below makes me think it might be a good idea to make the case for "merge in the alternative" as a much better choice than "delete". So if the RSes are to be believed, NESticle was easily the most popular emulator of the 90s. This means that a large number of people used it and thus a large number of people know its name. I think that under WP:BEFORE (point C4) this should qualify it for a redirect as "a likely search term" at the very least. If we merge rather than deleting then we will also be able to preserve the article's history which might be important to someone who wished to re-create the article if further sources were uncovered in the future. Again, if the RSes are to be believed and this was indeed such a pioneering and influential emulator then this isn't perhaps too much of a flight of fancy. After all, it's not as if the RSes are just mentioning the emulator in passing. They are mentioning it together with superlatives like "best-known" and "most popular" and "pioneering" and "emulator of choice". To label this through AfD as a topic unworthy of inclusion on Wikipedia makes no sense to me given the RS coverage. I am also opposed to the idea of a "merge and delete" for the reasons outlined here. "Merge" is a distinctly inferior outcome in my view to "keep", but it's much better than "delete". I hope that the closing admin considers all arguments presented instead of just tallying votes. -Thibbs (talk) 10:28, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete. (revised below) I looked through the above sources and they seem to provide enough material to write a few decent sentences on the subject in a broader list or NES emulation history article. However, they are very brief, not in-depth, and descriptive rather than critical. [1] talks about emulation problems and mention NESticle in passing. [2] is again a brief mention in a speedrun history feature. [3] is a briefly mentioned as used to play a game. [4] briefly lists NESticle as the tool used to make a certain game. The Retro Gaming Hacks, SPIN, A Winner is Who? and the several thesis entries appear to be similar passing mentions in milestone/list, enough to quote the subject as important to the history, but none feature the subject as the their topic or are in-depth enough to make it notable for WP. I doubt the situational sources will provide any more coverage. I'm sure some magazines of the time would feature similar passing mentions and excerpts. From the above, I was actually expecting to say "keep" on this, but I don't think I'm convinced this passes WP:GNG. As for historical significance, I agree, but this ( the content from sources) should be a part of a larger article on NES or emulators. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 17:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say that the number of RSes (and the terminology they use: "pioneering", "widely popular", etc.) demonstrate notability. The "significant coverage" aspect of the GNG is more of a practical concern as far as I understand it. Without significant coverage there simply isn't enough to write about. But in this case I think reliable WP:SPS-compliant material like this could easily fill in the gaps (development history/technical details/etc.) leaving the third-party RSes for reception/reputation/historical significance/etc. That would seem to be enough material to support a fairly complete stand alone article. Anyway I'm confused by the conclusion this "this should be a part of a larger article" if the above vote is "weak delete". Wouldn't "merge" be a better !vote in that case? -Thibbs (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge would imply the content is in the article, it isn't -- its in the sources you have provided, none of them are actually referenced yet. I try not to say "merge" unless I can point exactly to what needs merging and to where, and this is usually sourced content. This was more of a general conclusion. As for "significant coverage", I understand what you are saying (hence "weak" delete), but I interpret it slightly differently, so I'm afraid we will just disagree on that. Hopefully, more people will chime in, I've given my arguments as I see it. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I respect your view, but I think WP:BEFORE makes the case that a "delete" !vote is a !vote on the topic (as it exists in the world at large) rather than on the Wikipedia article's content (as currently presented). A "delete" result would be evidence that there exists no material (anywhere) to merge and thus that the topic should not appear within Wikipedia period. That would seem to be different from the general conclusion you came to. Obviously if "merge" was the result of the AfD then only RS-backed information would be migrated so if there was none currently in the article then none would be migrated to the parent article. The "merge" vote, however, would mean that the topic or concept is of sufficient notability to appear within Wikipedia although not as a stand-alone topic. I'm not trying to change your !vote if "delete" is really what you intended, but I feel like some of the other things you've said belie that conclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 18:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I recognize the difference between topic's notability and the article's quality, otherwise I would be fallaciously arguing about the content (which I haven't even mentioned) instead of referring to multiple in-depth source coverage (as I do). Also, I don't believe I actually said "merge" myself anywhere, what I meant is some of the content about NESticle from sources you listed could be included in other articles. This isn't an argument for or against deletion, this is a suggestion for adding usable content since we are on the topic. I will amend this to make my statement clearer. This does not mean I think sources are GNG-worthy. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:54, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        OK I don't mean to be dense, but I'm still confused about your stance on this topic. In your 18:05 post, you said "Merge would imply the content is in the article, it isn't -- its in the sources you have provided, none of them are actually referenced yet." As far as I understand this, you seem to have chosen to vote "delete" instead of "merge" for precisely article-content reasons. Specifically it looks like you think that you are casting a !vote on the current content of the article and that if RS-based content exists outside of the article then it is extraneous to the vote. What I'm saying here is that it's not. The in-depthness of the sources usually goes to the question of whether to vote "keep" and we're clearly in disagreement about that point which is fine, but in-depthness isn't really an issue in determining between "delete" and "merge". "Merge" is specifically for "topic[s] not important enough to merit an article on [their] own." In other words, it's for topics with some notability but without sufficient notability to pass GNG. "Delete", on the other hand is for topics that are unfit for inclusion on Wikipedia, period. Please look at the article again. I've just made a few edits to add the content from the RSes above. Are you saying that the topic should be deleted instead of being merged? Or has the change in the article's appearance/condition changed your opinion? I'm sorry to belabor this, but I think I've now explained my perspective as clearly as possible and I'll accept your response at face value either way. -Thibbs (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you are reading too much into my comments and taking the terms too literally. Whether that content is included or not would be inconsequential to my underlying !vote, it's still "delete". As I said, I'm well aware that article's content is irrelevant to subject's notability. The difference here is whether it is "delete" or "merge then delete", but it's still "delete". Merge is just something we can do in addition, like redirect, split, trim, salt, etc. To answer your question -- my basic delete/keep stance can't change without new sources, because I never based my stance on the content. In other words, you can replace my "delete" with "non-notable" for the same general meaning. This is what I mean - not notable as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth reliable sources. In this case, I argue that none of the proposed sources are in-depth. I hope you see what I mean. ("Merge" or "don't merge" comes after. It was "don't merge" before, now it's "merge", because you added "mergable" content.)
        
        Now, all that said, a separate alternative, and this will be confusing as hell -- I might argue this article can be a valid WP:SPLIT from List of video game emulators as having too much content to fit nicely in the main article. This is by no means a "keep" !vote or saying that the topic is "notable". In this case, this reasoning does deal with the content and doesn't deal with notability. To paraphrase, I'm saying there is enough well-sourced content to warrant a separate page to keep the main list clean (so we don't have to start splitting it up by systems). Basically, I didn't expect this much content to be squeezed from those sources. Now, this train of thought is a bit WP:IAR and certainly an editorial decision, rather than having anything to do with notability. (I'll review my arguments tomorrow, after all it was "weak" delete and my interpreted threshold for "in-depth" is pretty strict.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 22:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, it makes sense to me now. Sorry about the confusion. I'll sit back and let others weigh in. -Thibbs (talk) 23:14, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will revise my stance to Neutral. Firstly, the emulator is in my opinion not notable as not passing WP:GNG with multiple independent in-depth reliable sources. In this case, I argue that none of the proposed sources are in-depth. However, the emulator is described in many superlatives as very significant during its time, making a strong case of its importance. And while importance != notability, there are a whole bunch of these sources with such claims. Ultimately, my stance would be to preserve content either by consensus to keep or merge. This does not mean I believe the topic to be notable by strictly following GNG, but I do believe a strong case can be made (and has been made) for content's inclusion whether as a separate article or as a section/part of a larger article. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 11:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone 02:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Clear encyclopedic knowledge. Well written article, well referenced, referencing the first free NES emulator (that fact alone makes it notable). Large number of Google Books entries, and a huge number of web pages talk about the product. The Wayback Machine probably 10's of thousands of pages on it, since it was the first free NES emulator. Why was it Afd'd? scope_creep (talk) 22:59, 11 July 2013 (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.