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 Redirect to Doom WAD. JERRY ^talk _contribs 03:43, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doom Builder[edit]

No assertion of notability. No reliable, independent sources. Prod was "contested" on the basis that it received over 150 votes in some forum. Drat (Talk) 12:31, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Doom Builder is a popular editor in the Doom editing community. Indeed, there is talk about a rewrite in C/C++ or another more modern language. It's a good editor that deserves a Wikipedia article. Samboy (talk) 21:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. It's being "good" doesn't enter into it, as that is a subjective view (see WP:ILIKEIT); I personally think it's a fantastic editor. However, it needs to be shown that sources that are both reliable and wholly independent of the subject and coder have written about it non-trivially.--Drat (Talk) 01:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. I've changed my mind, and bow to consensus. I see no harm in making this page a redirect page to Doom WAD, and adding any relevant content here to that page. Samboy (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have some reservations about the article because there should first be one about Doom level editors in general before any about individual editors, which should be kept or made only for those tools that merit it for some reason (thus I'd encourage someone to start on an article of the former type, and then perhaps consider merging or deleting). But the reasons for the deletion proposition seem rather insubstantial and merely formal. As far as reliability is concerned, the article is linking to the actual object described (its web page, with direct access to the free program for anyone to check up), and as for notability, it's clear to anyone familiar with Doom (which is a genre forging game and not just some random forgettable game) editing activity that the editing tool is widely used and well known. Who is like God? (talk) 22:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, many "formal" deletion nominations occur nowadays and will continue to occur, because uncounted thousands of fiction-related articles were shoveled into Wikipedia (in good faith) before the notability guidelines had achieved some semblance of consensus. Xeriphas1994 (talk) 14:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I love DB, it is a very reliable, stable, and feature rich editor for Doom and Doom related games/engines. It definitely deserves its own article.Steeveeo (talk) 14:25, 4 February 2008 (Pacific Standard (-8 GMT))

Those are not good reasons for having a wikipedia article. To be worthy of an article, it must meet standards of notability. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. I am a huge Doom fan but it isn't worthy of a wikipedia article. fraggle (talk) 23:41, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I think it's worth pointing out that we already have the Doom wiki for Doom-related subjects, and there is already an article on DoomBuilder there. fraggle (talk) 09:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someone another 03:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not an infinite resource that should be used for all the finer details of a specific subject (be it Doom or otherwise). There's already a Doom Builder article at the Doom Wiki, where DB is most appropriate having an article. --Mike (talk) 07:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no third party sources means no article, as is typical with most fan software like this.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Doom (video_game) article If it is not suitable in that article, then delete it. Why is this discussion in category 'P' places and transportation???? Alaney2k (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- My mistake. I meant to label it as product. Should've checked the category listing.--Drat (Talk) 01:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think a better place for this info would be under the Editors section of the Doom_WAD page. Thoughts? Nuxius (talk) 03:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, it would be a good place for it... an Interwiki link to the Doom Wiki should also be set up so they can be directly linked to a wiki dedicated to Doom. --Mike (talk) 11:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nevermind, I found that there's already a template for it... [[Doom_wiki:Entryway|Entryway]]/Entryway --Mike (talk) 11:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom WAD. Precedent: the names of many source ports are redirects to Doom source port. [1] Reasoning: while the overall concept of Doom extensibility is notable because it was pioneering and widespread (see bibliography), no individual utility has achieved a like measure of real-world prominence. Choosing a Doom editor is a bit like choosing spark plugs for a particular model of classic car: life and death within the community, but cruft to everyone else. This particular program will never be documented in multiple, non-trivial, independent publications anyway because it was originally released in 2003, when the Doom engine was already long obsolete. Xeriphas1994 (talk) 17:57, 9 February 2008 (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.