Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CxBx-Reloaded

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:25, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CxBx-Reloaded

[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)

No evidence of notability. Prod'ded as such, but article still doesn't have any reliable, independent sources about the product. The 94 Google hits[1] don't really contain much that helps here: lots of fora, download sites, and the like, but nothing better. This seems to be the best Google News result: a very passing mention, basically verifying the existence but nothing further. Other articles give similar passing mentions. A substantial discussion of the emulator in reliable sources seems to be missing. Fram (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. I also looked and couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The original project, Cxbx, gets mentioned a few times in reliable sources but it also lacks significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you count more than 99 Google hits here? [2]. This is exactly the same search, but instead of 99 I got 99.500. Your search engine is biased (that's common, search engines "adapt" to your most common kind of search to provide information that's usually related to your "taste" and latest search content you have visited), maybe try with an anonymous/private tab or with a different browser? Also, I'm pretty sure even the link to Github alone is enough information (as it's the entire source code of the project), not exactly sure what else is expected from the article at this point. Literalmente.game (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We're not looking for any mentions online, but significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. That means in-depth articles discussing the subject from reputable video games or tech media, books, magazines, newspapers, and so on. We aren't interested in primary sources by the developer (like everything he puts on Github), random YouTubers, user-generated-content like Wikis, emulation databases, or sources like that. See WP:VG/S and WP:RS for more information about our sourcing requirements. Woodroar (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great answer, then you care to explain how this article isn't listed for deletion as well? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenia_(emulator)

1st reference is random Youtuber, 2nd is the developer own compatibility tracker, The FAQ is from the developer site, Polygon article doesn't cover anything, it's just a copy of the text and video from the DSOGAMING (which is funny, because CxBx-Reloaded has one article just like that as well, here https://www.dsogaming.com/videotrailer-news/dinos-crisis-3-and-jet-set-radio-future-running-with-60fps-on-the-xbox-emulator-cxbx-reloaded/). Literalmente.game (talk) 16:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked around and found more reliable sources talking about Xenia, but they do appear rather trivial. That article does look like a candidate for deletion, sure. Keep in mind that the English Wikipedia has over 6 million articles and nearly all of us are unpaid volunteers, and also not omnicient.

Woodroar (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you can't actually expect this kind of coverage from the regular listed sources because they'll never be able to do it (they simply can't, they have no knowledge about anything they cover to go beyond the "trivial" aspect of this particular subject). If I go right now article by article about similar topics, I'm sure I can find the same problems you're pointing out on both Xenia and CxBx-Reloaded. But as I've said: the issue isn't exactly on the articles themselves, but that this subject can only be covered properly by developers, so both articles should still remain on wikipedia as the references provided on both sides are actually as complete as they could get. Literalmente.game (talk) 19:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, that's not possible on Wikipedia. We only write about subjects that have been covered in significant detail by independent, reliable sources. That's our General Notability Guideline, which has broad support across the project. (Of course, as you pointed out, some articles do slip through. That's exactly why we have the Articles for Deletion process.) EmuGen or the VG Emulation Wiki are probably better suited for niche emulation subjects like CxBx-Reloaded. Woodroar (talk) 20:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. No reliable coverage = no article. Most notable software gets covered by reliable sources in one way or another, but CxBx-Reloaded is nowhere to be found (with exactly zero hits via WP:VG/SE). I'm sure a lot of work has gone into the software, but the same applies to the dozens (if not hundreds) of similar pieces of software out there. To say that the article "can only be covered properly by developers" (as Literalmente.game, who I therefore would believe to be one of the developers of CxBx-Reloaded, states above) is rather grotesque, considering that we're on Wikipedia, which should not be used as a soapbox. A self-hosted Wiki or Wiki-alike should do the trick instead. Finally, I agree with Literalmente.game that [[Xenia {emulator)]] should similarly be deleted; although some reliable sources do touch on the topic, it is usually "Red Dead Redemption emulated on PC" or a rehash of a development blog post, insufficient for a separate article. IceWelder [✉] 15:56, 11 May 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.