Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeSmuME (2nd nomination)
I actually wrote the current version of the article and put in most of the sources and really didn’t want it to get deleted. I did my best to find independent, reliable sources that provided significant coverage and cite them all in the article itself. Other people have reviewed them and seem to agree that each source is either not independent, not reliable, or does not provide significant coverage. I do not understand those policies enough at this point to know exactly how “reliable” or “significant coverage” is defined since I thought it was pretty obvious that several of those sources were both of those yet here I see consensus among a bunch of people that actually, those conditions are not met. Anyway I cannot vote to keep my article knowing what I now know about the policy, since in the Talk page of the article, Woodroar and I discussed various sources and even the one source I thought would PROVE notability, Woodroar totally demolished my argument regarding that source. Anyway, go ahead and delete it, I am sorry for creating that article, I really thought I had met the notability guidelines, it seems I need to study the notability guidelines harder. Is there any recommended reading anyone can suggest to me on the precise meanings of “reliable sources” and “significant coverage”, like anything you can link me to that would describe in detail what exactly those mean, and not just brief little things that can be interpreted in multiple ways like ? That would really help a whole lot. I really want to keep contributing to Wikipedia in the future, you see, but unless I am educated on this matter, it will be difficult for me to know what I am allowed to create articles on and what I am not. I was pretty sure that DeSmuME was a notable enough topic to merit inclusion in this online encyclopedia according to its General Notability Guideline but it seems I misinterpreted the definitions of both “reliable sources” and “significant coverage”. I am sorry about that. Thank you Woodroar for trying to educate me about this and for looking at all my sources and being the one to go through this process, and thank you Salvidrim for also taking the time to look at all the sources in detail. I actually honestly considered nominating the article for deletion myself after what Woodroar explained to me on the talk page and understood that it did not meet the notability guidelines but I figured, no, I would learn more if I waited for someone else to do it so that I could see the exact reasoning used, plus, there was also the possibility that Woodroar did not represent the consensus of people in AfD discussions, which was still an open question in my mind at that time. But now, well, clearly this article has to be deleted. It was a mistake for me to create it and I am sorry
— NONE, NONE
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:GNG (Wikipedia:Notability)