PSEmu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It appears that both the original deleter and subsequent commentators had little knowledge on the level of impact PSEmu on the emulator scene and lacked the ability or time to identify numerous 3rd party sources. An exhaustive literature review citing unique 3rd party sources Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/PSEmu has been presented. This also includes additional 3rd party references useful in fleshing out other prominent emulator articles. 121.45.167.176 ( talk) 16:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but suggest userspace draft. Looking at the "new" sources, I don't see any that really stand out as being what we would consider a reliable source. If you register you could try making a draft in userspace, however, which might stand a better chance. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• What would be considered a reliable source for emulation information? 121.45.167.176 ( talk) 18:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

  Ideally, peer-reviewed papers (I've seen plenty on the subject of emulation) and physical publications (at least one UK magazine was devoted to emulation, with magazines such as Retro Gamer devoting considerable time to them). None of the links added to the closed AfD (now reverted) were suitable; the majority were based on fan sites of no established reliability. FWIW I think that PSEmu has indeed had enough coverage in that regard to warrant an article, but I wouldn't argue for undeletion until such point as the legwork is done to collect said reliable sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 14:11, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Retro Gamer is devoted to classic games, not classic game emulators. The sources presented can be grouped into various categories:

1. References to PSEmu Pro extracted from existing emulators and graphical plugins (i.e. EPSXE) documentation (online and text FAQ and Readmes).
2. Interviews and articles from various well known gaming and emulation sites i.e. the emulation64.com interviews, 1up.com article, elitegamer.com and pcrave.com interviews with Bleem! authors - Note that these interviews are also a primary reference for the Bleem! wiki page.

If these sources are rejected, there is the possibility of penning a unique article on PSEmu Pro and its influence on modern emulation (i.e. MAME and PCSX2).

1. Pete's Domain - The homepage of the author of Pete's OpenGL plugins; these highly recommended GPU plugins are defaults in multiple playstation emulators ( epsxe/ AdriPSX/ PSXeven). Pete is considered an expert developer in this field and his Sound Plugins are currently in use in PCSX2.
2. The three sources listed under Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/PSEmu#Reliable_Sources were found using CiteSeer and Google Scholar.

These sources are more exhaustive then existing articles covering other emulators; if they are inadequete, by the same reasoning I would flag other playstation emulator articles for deletion. 121.45.167.176 ( talk) 21:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Who considers Pete to be an expert developer in the field? Of the 3 sources from the parts given at AFD, the 1st and 3rd are just passing mentions, they won't be a source for anything to do with this subject beyond "it exists". The second it's hard to tell from the info given, but I doubt it's a reliable source - most scholarly papers don't gush about features being "awesome". -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Permit re-creation Actually, re-creation is already permitted; this title isn't salted. If you want a copy of the deleted article so you can build a better-sourced version out of it, just contact an admin in CAT:UNDELETE. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• endorse This is crying out for a userspace draft with decent sourcing. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Chile earthquake ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

It is not clear that the closer actually followed consensus in closing the debate. Discussion has already taken place at the closer's talk page. I think either "no consensus, default to keep" or a position "keep now, review in a few months" per Peterkingiron/BHG would be the actual position reached. Disclosure: I actually voted delete in the debate. Orderinchaos 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to NC I read the CfD and tried to read the discussion on the admin's talk page. At the very least the closer should have provided a closing rational. At best I'd say the closer should have !voted instead. In all cases I'm not seeing consensus to delete nor is there any obviously applicable policy that is squarely on target here. I'd likely have !voted to delete (is this really a long-term defining feature of these locations?) but apparently others felt it was. As the nom suggests it might make sense to revisit this in a month or two. Hobit ( talk) 17:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn as Keep Consensus at the CfD was rather clear for retention. That the closing administrator offered a one word close contrary to consensus, without any explanation whatsoever to backup his interpretation, only aggravates the problem here. Alansohn ( talk) 18:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (original nominator). I think the administrator could have gotten away with closing this as delete on the strength of the arguments or as no consensus based on a vote count. I prefer to take the strength of argument, personally. One way or another, I believe the category will eventually be deleted, so I think there's little harm in letting this result stand. On the other hand, I do agree that relisting for more input would not be a bad thing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (relist for more discussion). It is not good enough that the the right decision was made. The participants in the discussion must be respected. Decisions should be made by the community, not by an educated elite. In this case, the closer should have !voted. Consensus was not nearly clear, it would have been a stretch to close with a detailed rationale, and was certainly not suitable to be closed summarily. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep In general I do not think it is the business of the closer to decide how to interpret policy. Their job is to discard arguments not based on any policy, or, sometimes, by SPAs, and then judge consensus. The community decides. The closer just decides what it is that the community has decided, which can be difficult enough DGG ( talk ) 01:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • So could you explain how you would come to the conclusion that the community here decided to "keep" (as opposed to a "no consensus" or a "delete")? Without deciding how to interpret policy, of course. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to keep per DGG. Seems clear to me that there was a consensus to keep (or at least, no consensus to delete) and given that there is no evidence of canvassing it should have been kept. If administrators can ignore consensus and simply decree their preferred solution, why bother with the discussion at all? It would save a lot of wasted effort at CfD... -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk
• Overturn to keep (category creator) per DGG. No clear consensus to delete, strength of argument to delete somewhat tenuous, several arguments to keep ignored and unexamined. Ericoides ( talk) 09:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (relist for more discussion). Three options were set out in the discussion: delete now, keep without qualification, and keep-but-review-in-a-few-months. AFAICS, the arguments for an unqualified keep were weak compared with the arguments for deletion, because there was no answer to the delete comments about the lack of clear inclusion criteria. Just how much does a place have to be "affected" to fit in the category? Where is the threshold on the spectrum between "no physical damage at all, but some loss of tourist trade" to "completely flattened and all inhabitants killed"? That's a classic case of a WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE category, and tightening the inclusion criteria would inevitably breach WP:OC#ARBITRARY. The "keep but review later" solution which I suggested in this case was AFAIK a bit of a novel one, intended to allow time for editors working on the articles to consider a more durable way of categorising the earthquake's impact ... but I dunno if it was workable, because it hasn't been tried.
  I think that the closer's lack of a rationale is mistaken, and that the discussion should be relisted to allow further exploration of the unresolved issues. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:54, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• closer? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd hope so, otherwise BHG is going on a trip to WP:RFC/U to get whacked with a civility stick... ha. -- Xdamr ^talk 23:42, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Oooops! Thanks for spotting that: I did of course mean "closer". Sorry! -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus Unlike the debate being reviewed below, this one in my opinion was best closed as "no consensus." Numerically, the debate was fairly split; in terms of strength of argument, while both sides made interesting arguments, I don't think either side's arguments stood out as especially strong. "Keep for now and discuss in a few months" seems like the most prudent course from here on; I do hope that the closing admin will provide a closing rationale next time, as it was needed here. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus. No clear consensus to delete. – SJ + 06:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Category:London Films productions ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closer ignored consensus and near-unanimous opposition to the proposal to impose a farcical solution on the basis of a "convention" which did not have the status of policy. Discussion has already taken place at the closer's talk page. The two moves were:

• Category:London Films productions to Category:London Films films
• Category:CBS Films productions to Category:CBS Films films

Orderinchaos 15:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as closer - convention of Category:Films_by_studio is to adopt the form 'XYZ films'. These two categories were exceptions to this format, used unanimously throughout this category tree. In the event of absurdity or oddity it is more than open for someone to open a group nomination to amend the standard form. -- Xdamr ^talk 17:32, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As I proposed in the discussion, I think this was a reasonable approach to take given the contents of the discussion. I presume the categories can be re-nominated for discussion if a proposal is made to change the entire format of the category tree. Until then, these conform to the standard. The nominator is incorrect to state that there was "near-unanimous opposition" to this format. There were as many in favour (2) as there were explicitly opposed (2). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Don't forget an additional vote which made a (in my view) best-of-3 proposition, which would appear to indicate a lack of agreement with the proposed rename. Orderinchaos 21:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I haven't forgotten it—I said there were 2 in favour and 2 explicitly opposed, which is true. I purposefully ignored the other comment because it could be read as not being squarely in favour of either. My only point was that characterizing this as "near-unanimous opposition" was not super accurate. Anyway, it's not a vote count, so I'll stop counting. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Was this a joke? (was my first thought... but on reading, I see not, so seriously...) There was certainly not consensus to proceed. Conventions do not trump an explicit discussion. The use of film is dwindling, anyway, so better to use the more generic word and not go ugly. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, not to be a nit-picker, but in some circumstances conventions most certainly can and do trump explicit discussions: per Consensus is not a walled garden: "A consensus by a small group of editors cannot override policies and guidelines that have been agreed to by a wider range of editors." I'm not saying this necessarily did or did not apply here, but I am noticing some unfamiliarity with the basic concepts of " what is consensus?". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:18, 15 March 2010 (UTC) reply
    • I'd prefer to see participants unfamiliar with established conventions pointed to documentation of those conventions, and not see participants ignored or overruled because they failed to argue why an obscure (to them) convention should not apply in this case. Discussion of a particular case in the light of a particular convention should be in the discussion, not in the close.
    • Yes, I have seen Wikipedia:What_is_consensus, although not in a long time. Definitions via "not"s are intellectually weak. A walled garden is best fixed by cutting windows. If an XfD looks like a walled garden, then the participants need educating. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:53, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
      • I can understand your point that the convention should perhaps be more explicitly stated in the discussion, however since we are not (another not) a burecracy I can't see how a failure to follow your or my preference would make the close "a joke". I'd also note that we can get ugly any way if we rigidly impose a convention, first to come to mind is a game producer - Sucker Punch Productions - we don't have the category Sucker Punch Productions productions yet. I can't imagine the communties vision of the convention is so rigid as to create such nonsenses. There are always exceptions to the rule which probably is what should have happened here. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 07:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
        • I found it hard to believe we would rename reasonable sounding titles to silly sounding titles, and thought maybe there was some joke involved. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
          • I thought the trendy dogma of the day was that all of CFD was a joke. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
            • No, I think the meme in those quarters is that CFD is a secret, closed, fascist communist conspiracy, and that such a wicked situation is No Joke At All™. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
              • I see the preferred method of interaction with other editors by CfD regulars is still through the use of mockery and contempt for the views of others. Some things don't change. Sigh. -- Mattinbgn\ ^talk 11:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                • On the contrary, I have great respect for those who actually want to discuss how improve decision-making processes, but my comment reflects the sad fact that there a small number of editors who prefer hurling abuse than trying to explore ways of making things better. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                  • I have great respect for those who stick around and have to deal with the abuse. -- Kbdank71 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                    • I have even greater respect for users who have a bit of a sense of humour and don't hang on to every perceived slight that was ever committed against them or a category that was once loved and lost. Remind me, who are they again? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                      • Please, the reference to "joke" was reflecting my first impression at seeing the old and new category names, my impression of a lack of gravity associated with these specific categories, and a perceived silliness (lack of style) in the rename. I had not then read the XfD. No offense was intended, but I'm sorry if anyone, including the closer, took offense. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
                        • SmokeyJoe, your first "joke" comment was made in the edit when you recommended overturning the closure. I'm astonished that you voted to either overturn or endorse the closure of an XfD you had not read. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

Um, indeed. I don't mind being subject to the scrutiny of DRV - it's an important part and parcel of the nexus of rights and responsibilities to which any Xfd-closing admin is subject. That said, whether they end up agreeing or disagreeing with my actions, I would hope that people would at least have read the discussion in question. There were reasons for my closure. Agree or disagree with them according to your judgement, but before jumping into a DRV, at least do me the courtesy of considering the circumstances and merits of the case.

Anyway, enough said. -- Xdamr ^talk 23:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

The first sentence was my first thought. The "this" referred to the rename itself. The rest was composed later. I often work on a slow connection, and it can take a while for pages to load. I should probably have never posted the first sentences, but I find it funny, as in ridiculously funny, that we would seriously rename "Category:London Films productions" to "Category:London Films films". Rest assured that by the time I pressed "save", I had read the discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:02, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I was the first of the two objectors to the proposed rename, but I support the validity of the closure. There is a convention, and the closer was quite right to attach a lot of weight to existing naming conventions. The category system relies heavily on a consistent approach to naming, and the convention of a category tree should be breached only when there is a pressing need to do so. The arguments put forward by me and others for breaching the naming convention in this case were weak, because there were already three other sub-categories of Category:Films by studio which use the ugly "Foo Films film" convention (see Category:FenceSitter Films films, Category:Dimension Films films and Category:Cha Cha Cha Films films). Since the convention was already to append the word "films" even when it created a "Films films" name, the closer was right to suggest that the solution is to revisit the naming convention by taking a wider look at the category, rather than to create an exception. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I agree with all BHG's remarks immediately above. Occuli ( talk) 11:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per closer and BHG. Making exceptions to existing conventions just creates confusion. -- Kbdank71 14:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Agree that to make exceptions without an explicit awareness that we are doing so is a bad thing, but so is overriding a discussion without a clear reference to the alleged convention. "Per 100 or so categories in Category:Films_by_studio." is not good enough, because Category:Films_by_studio is not a sufficient documentation of a convention. I am still not seeing documentation for the alleged convention, let alone a discussion discussing the pros and cons of adopting it as binding on future editors. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• A convention exists even when it is not documented. Think of it as being like a common law system rather than the Napoleonic code. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I know, but I we shouldn't do it this way because it makes CfD difficult for newcomers. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• You might be right that in a perfect world it wouldn't be the way to do things, but in the real WP world it's very difficult to avoid, unless we decided to meticulously record every consensus-based CFD result, organise them into types, and then use this collection to derive generally worded principles and conventions. It can be done and it is done—bit by bit, here a little and there a little—but there's no way we can be adequately prepared for every new nomination that pops up. I do my best to at least track deletions, but even that collection is far from comprehensive, and comprehensively tracking renames/category format conventions that have been adopted by consensus would be a mammoth task. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Your resources are excellent, thank you. I think we've agreed that finding a solution is not so easy. I am still inclined to say that this would all be easier, including for the newcomer to categorisation, if there was a hoop or two to jump through before creating categories contrary to conventions. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure I am inclined to say that this one was within the closing admin's discretion. Five editors participated in the debate; two, including the nominator, supported the proposed rename, while two others opposed it. A fifth user proposed an alternative rename that failed to garner any support. It was up to the closing admin to weigh the arguments presented; more weight was assigned to the argument that all categories in the category tree should be named in a conventional way. This is not a policy or guideline, as noted by Orderinchaos, but it is a convention and a reasonable argument. Orderinchaos, moreover, fails to note that if anything those opposing the rename had even less policy-rooted arguments, simply insisting that aesthetically speaking the new name would be "appalling" uglier. That's rather subjective, as Good Ol'factory noted in the debate. In any case, I think this was a valid close with a valid closing rationale. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 04:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC) reply