Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EP128Emu

EP128Emu

EP128Emu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Probably non-notable software. Can't find any independent third-party sources to establish notability. Psychonaut (talk) 12:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Note that this is an emulator of the Enterprise 128 8-bit computer. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 01:17, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • What significant coverages can you find for Commodore and Spectrum emulation softwares? --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't delete: Third party source here This is not a self published material.
  • The link goes to the website of FLOSSzine, which bills itself as a fanzine. The cover and table of contents are provided, and EP128Emu does indeed appear to be listed. However, zines are typically non-professional self-published works, which can't generally be used to establish notability. What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability? —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Do other articles on emulation softwares (eg. Commodore, Spectrum) fulfill your requirement? I don't think so. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • "What evidence do you have supporting your claim that FLOSSzine is a reliable source establishing notability?" Though zines can't GENERALLY be used to establish notability, how do you prove this zine also can't be used to establish notability? Do you speak Hungarian? "Generally" is not the same as "always". You should study these Flosszine papers to prove your statement citing from and referring to its content. You don't have to be expert of the area but at least you should speak Hungarian. It is really unjust that somebody like you decide to delete this article who neither speaks Hungarian nor knows anything about Z80 computers and their emulators. It would be very difficult for me to explain why I think Flosszine can establish the software's notability. You should study the Flosszine. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't delete: How many emulators exist that can emulate 3 machines (Enterprise, CPC, Spectrum) both in Windows and in Linux? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:00, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is. Very few CPC and Spectrum emulators exist for Linux. (Not to mention Enterprise emulator.) If you don't accept its relevancy then you are not familiar in this area. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't delete: How many emulators (of any computer) have a debugger like this? --Szipucsu (talk) 18:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This argument is not relevant to the deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • It is. This statement of yours also proves you are not familiar in this area. Do you know at all what a debugger is? Maybe all emulation softwares have some debugger, its usability is not irrelevant at all from the point of view of its notability. --Szipucsu (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Don't delete: I think the person who nominated this article for deletion is not an expert of old computers and their emulators. Only an expert could tell if this software is notable enough or not. To nominate the article for deletion you should be an expert of this area. Without finding any expert and having him check the notability of this software the article is not to be deleted. Enterprise is a computer like CPC, Spectrum or Commodore even if not so known; it was known in many countries where people use the emulator. That's why its emulator is also important. --Szipucsu (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If only an expert is qualified to determine the notability of a subject, then that subject cannot possibly be encyclopedic. We are writing a general-purpose encyclopedia here, not an experts' reference. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
  • This way all the emulation software articles should be deleted and many-many articles. You don't have to be an expert but at least know something about Enterprise computer. Less people know Enterprise than C64 or ZX Spectrum but it is not a reason for not letting room for this computer and its emulator on a general-purpose encyclopedia. Enterprise 64/128 was made in the UK and sold in more countries in the '80s. Its emulator is as important as the Commodore, Spectrum etc. emulators. I am not an expert of this area either but at least I have some basic knowledge of the 1980's computers and their emulators. If you were not familiar in the history then you would delete the articles on the details of certain historical events? 1980's computers and their emulators do have room in the Wikipedia. If Enterprise were a computer I made and only my family used it and its emulator I would understand what you are talking about but EP is an internationally known computer as ZX Spectrum and Commodore. All the 1980's emulation software do have room in the Wiki. It is not an objective approach that Enterprise is less important because it is less known. greetings, --Szipucsu (talk) 12:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)