Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homebrew Channel

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Homebrew Channel

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

Article claims to be a "notable hack" for the Wii, but does not supply sourcing that establishes WP:Notability. In addition, I'm a bit leery of having instructions that can be used to pirate games. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't see convincing sources. --KFP (contact | edits) 17:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) –MuZemike 17:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't really care about the 'piracy' side of things here (ask me my opinion on piracy another time). However, this article, as it stands, doesn't assert notability. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While in general illegal activity can be the subject of a Wikipedia article if it satisfies our content policies (like WP:N, WP:V, WP:NOT, etc.), this article's lack of reliable independent sources indicates that it does not meet WP:N. RJaguar3 | u | t 22:09, 29 January 2011 (UTC) Change to keep per Teancum, who has provided evidence of coverage that can be used as sources for the article. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:17, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a WikiProject Video games reliable sources search turns up decent coverage at Kotaku, 1UP, and Joystiq and Eurogamer. A simple search for sources turned up plenty of usable hits, with Kotaku and Joystiq providing extensive coverage (over 50% of the hits). Obvious keep. --Teancum (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, if there are sources, they should be cited in the article. --KFP (contact | edits) 01:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Non-promotional in tone with adequate sources in the world to constitute notability. Carrite (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The identified sources establish notability, but need to be used for the article. Some work could be done to describe exploits without sounding like an installation guide. Wii homebrew is a potential merge topic pending expansion with the reliable sources. —Ost (talk) 15:03, 7 February 2011 (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.