Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PPSSPP

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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PPSSPP

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

While a great emulator, it has gotten hardly any published coverage to speak of, which can be reflected in the total dearth of reliable sources. It fails WP:GNG under Wikipedia guidelines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:49, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 17:07, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received independent media coverage regarding its 50 million download milestone, its implementation of the Vulcan graphics API, and its implementation of VR support (ditto). Also seems to have received some coverage regarding its 1.0 mobile release. I haven't performed a very thorough search, but I'm reasonably sure that I could find more beyond this. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 23:32, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced those sources are significant enough for it to pass GNG. They range from a sentence to a paragraph and generally fall under WP:PROMO without any actual independent examination of the subject beyond "hey, this thing exists and has released"._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:20, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 00:26, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources listed above are a sentence in length, either as a whole or regarding their mentions of PPSSPP.

RE: "[These sources] generally fall under WP:PROMO": None of the above sources serve as propaganda or advocacy pieces, they aren't opinion pieces, they don't perpetuate hearsay or rumor-mongering, the publishers have no affiliation with PPSSP and function independently, and, as a result of said independence and the lack of any blatant bias on the part of the authors, these sources do not function as advertising vehicles for PPSSPP. It's of my opinion that they pass WP:PROMO, as well as WP:GNG. FlotillaFlotsam (talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:10, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sources don't fall under WP:PROMO as they list/compare other similar tools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpaceInnovader (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 February 2018 (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.