Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Project Unreality

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. NW (Talk) 20:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Unreality

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

This program does not assert notability. TTN (talk) 18:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A viable emulator for a popular gaming paltform would seem notable enuf for me. I would not delete it. Cgmusselman (talk) 18:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles need a decent amount of third party coverage in reliable sources. Just existing is not a reason to keep it. TTN (talk) 19:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So where did you look to check that no such sources exist? Your nomination makes no mention of any such thing, but is rather based upon looking solely at the article and what it "asserts". Uncle G (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I dont know about him, but I looked in WP:VG's custom search engine for reliable sources, and found loads of things for a gaming engine called "Unreal", but nothing about a "Project Unreality". _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Good, but that doesn't relieve TTN of the burden. AFD works properly when multiple editors all looking for sources independently of one another support the same conclusion. That way, we can be confident of the conclusion. So far, you're the only editor in this discussion to have even stated that you looked for sources at all. That means that the decision, lacking any further input here, is effectively relying solely upon your research alone, given that the rationales by TTN and Cgmusselman don't put our Wikipedia:Deletion policy into action. Uncle G (talk) 00:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked for sources and couldn't find it anywhere. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:07, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't meet the general notability guidelines at WP:N, which require "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any evidence of coverage in reliable, third-party sources, so I think this article fails the verifiability requirements. Google Books shows a handful of hits: some of them are not talking about the emulator, but a derisive nickname for N64 project delays; one is a printed Wikipedia mirror; and one does mention the emulator, but it is simply part of a list with no details whatsoever. Google Scholar shows nothing of value. A regular Web search turns up lots of hits, but nothing that I would classify as a reliable third-party source in this context. Zophar's Domain might be an acceptable source under some circumstances (it is one of the oldest and best-known emulation sites), but all it contains is a couple of sentences. There really isn't sufficient material to pass the general notability guideline or have an article that meets Wikipedia policy. *** Crotalus *** 21:14, 30 September 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.