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 with a BFG. And Salt to be extra-sure. --humblefool® 08:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skulltag[edit]

Skulltag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article about a source port of Doom. Supposedly a rather popular Doom port, but there's no evidence that it meets the notability guidelines at WP:SOFTWARE - there's no independent coverage of the software from reliable sources, it's not a core product of a notable developer, and it's not included with an OS. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 19:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 20:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• However, if this article were to be deleted, then articles such as ZDoom and ZDaemon would have to be deleted as well, under the same reasons. --Kurotsyn 16:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then feel free to nominate those articles for deletion. Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 21:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why don't you do it, since you want Skulltag gone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.184.73.153 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe because he's getting enough grief from this AfD and doesn't want 3X more? --W.marsh 00:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If the Skulltag entry gets deleted, I'll resurrect it. Every. Single. Time. So don't even try it, ""chuckles, no matter what bizarre grudge you've got against it. 4.246.217.13 23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • For situations like that, admins like to WP:SALT the page. So. Don't. Even. Try. To. Pull. That. Trick. Hbdragon88 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry, did I make myself unclear? If the Skulltag article goes down, I'm putting it back up. Period. Salting would be so insignificant it doesn't even enter the eqaution. I'm not letting a perfectly legitimate entry get deleted because some dude named NeoChaosX doesn't like the subject -of- the entry. End of story.4.246.217.13 05:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't make assumptions about my actions. I nominated this article because I felt (and some research confirmed) that this piece of software wasn't notable (I hadn't even heard about it until I found the article). And if you try to recreate the article if it's deleted, you won't be editing on Wikipedia for long. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 06:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not making assumptions, I'm pointing out the fact that you're trying to get the Skulltag entry deleted because you've got some mindbogglingly crazy grudge against the piece of software. If you wanted to pretend you had a legitimate reason, you should have based your deletion request on a guideline that has ACTUALLY BEEN ADOPTED.4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're assuming that this grudge is a "fact". Hence it's an assumption. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's a difference between deductive reasoining and assumption. I did the former, thanks. 4.246.219.169 07:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • So what? Because you must be right and there's absolutely no possible reason why this article might be considered valid for deletion by someone, then it therefore stands to reason that he must have a grudge against it? I already told you that deletion reasons don't have to follow the existing guidelines. They're guides, not concrete policies. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:33, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • Earth to Consumed Crustacean. Hello, Consumed Crustacean. Are you recieving? The fact that Neo's trying to get the entry deleted based specifically on the latest draft of a yet-to-be-adopted-and-may-never-be guideline that's currently under debate for being too vague and restrictive should make his reasons clear enough. His argument isn't standing on solid ground. It's standing on pudding during an earthquake. Why oh why would he try to get the Skulltag article pulled when his reasoning is so totally halfcocked? And why would he single out Skulltag when thousands of other software entries likewise "violate" the proposed guideline? Boy, what a mystery.4.246.219.169 07:51, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • He can base his nomination on whatever he likes. If others agree with him (they have), the article can be deleted. You haven't even tried to prove that this is notable, instead you just poke at the nominator. vab -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Making these sorts of threats isn't going to help make your case for keeping the article. Indeed, closing admins will often act in reaction to such threats and be more likely to delete an article because of them. I suggest you look for reliable sources which give non-trivial info about the game if you want it kept. Either that or find some other way to show it falls under WP:SOFTWARE. JoshuaZ 06:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Threats? What threats? I'm letting it be known what'll happen if the administrators somehow lose their minds and axe the Skulltag entry over NeoChaosX's personal bias against the subject matter. 4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yeah, and that's called a threat. If this AfD results in the article's deletion, it can't be reposted unless it goes through deletion review. To announce that you'll just keep reposting it no matter what any administrator says is, indeed, a threat. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Actually, it's -literally- not a threat by the very definition of the word "threat". Weird and wild stuff, huh?
              • How so? From the Wiktionary: A threat is: "an expression of intent to injure or punish another." To injure is: "To cause harm, especially physical harm to a living creature." Harm is: "Injury; hurt; damage; detriment; misfortune." Stop arguing nonsensical semantics and get back to the deletion, eh? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • If you think resurrecting a Wikpedia article that might get deleted on an unfair and completely insane basis constitutes as injury, punishment, and detriment, then you're a really scary person. Stop frightening me. 4.246.219.169 08:00, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't find any independent coverage either. shotwell 01:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hbdragon88 01:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So I guess that means that SLAX, GAIM, and many others should be removed as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrisonHopkins (talk • contribs) 02:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Heres another thing: That link isn't policy yet. It was PROPOSED. Meaning, it has no meaning. HarrisonHopkins 02:37, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — HarrisonHopkins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• It would be a disservice to the online Doom community to remove this page. This Wiki page makes a great reference for people who wish to see the differences between the online multiplayer ports. Skulltag is currently the most advanced multiplayer Doom port, with many extra features not found in other ports and this page help highlight those differences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) 03:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Can any of you dig up references from some reliable sources that would indicate the notability of this software? shotwell 03:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is clear case of jumping the gun before a proposed policy is even approved. Why bother going through the trouble of this if the policy is rejected? -deathz0r 03:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Deathz0r (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep I see no reason why this shouldn't be kept. If this page was deleted, then why would any other source port pages be kept? Wouldn't this mean that all pages about Doom source ports should be deleted as well? Wikipedia is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, so it should have information on just about everything. I say keep it. If it's deleted, then that means that the pages on ZDaemon, Zdoom, etc. would have to go along with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.208.35.216 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Seems that Skulltag has been noted by outside sources. It'd say that's enough notability, except that I don't have to because the policy isn't even official. Why are here again? by Romero, programmer of Doom - Interview with Carnevil by Lutrov71, the leader of Team Visplane Overflow - Rivecoder 04:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Rivecoder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• [1] "Doom - was voted the "#1 game of all time" in a poll among over 100 game developers and journalists conducted by GameSpy in July 2001" http://rome.ro/2005/12/happy-birthday-doom.html "and still going strong with Skulltag" one of Doom's main programmers thanks Skulltag for keeping his 13 year old game alive.
• Keep I think one of the programmers for the #1 voted game of all time is a pretty good source. --Catoptromancy 04:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Catoptromancy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Google news has zero hits, and while a normal Google search gets a mid-sized number of hits, none appear to be from independant third party sources. The only two proposed so far are from rome.ro which is itself invisible on Google news and has an Alexa ranking of 303,003. This sounds pretty bad until we look at skulltag.com's 578,695 Alexa ranking. No sources + no notability = delete. 152.91.9.144 04:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:SOFTWARE and WP:V/WP:RS. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 05:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that the Skulltag entry isn't violating any policy, right? It's only "violating" a proposal for a new policy that might or might not be adopted sometime in the future(and chances are high for "not"). Which makes NeoChaosX's argument for deleting Skulltag a total fallacy. 4.246.217.13 07:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Wikipedia isn't a bureaucracy and notability isn't clear cut. There are no set notability policies on things like this, they're just guidelines. They are suggestions. Any reasonable cause for deletion can be given, as NeoChaosX has done. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 06:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe NeoChaosX gave a reasonable cause in some magical alternate reality, but here in this universe, his cause for deletion revolves around the entry "violating" a proposal for a suggestion that hasn't even been adopted yet and may never be. Even then, major sourceports of Doom are notable for a variety of reasons anyway, Skulltag being no exception. 4.246.217.13 07:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You haven't even proved that it's a "major" or notable port. You haven't given any reliable third party sources to back it up. Perhaps you should take less time attacking his view point, and more making your own? -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a reliable source, which should be cited in the article. If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it" from WP:V, a Wikipedia official policy. Complain about that one, or if you can't, whinge about it with your chums at your forums. I saw the thread, so don't bother denying it. Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 07:53, 27 November 2006 (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.