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. W.marsh 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDaemon[edit]

ZDaemon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Its a source port of Doom, the article dosen't comply with the WP:SOFTWARE guideline nor with official policies WP:V or WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more specific, in what way does it not comply? I read WP:SOFTWARE and I disagree with your opinion, particularly when you have not specified in what way it does not comply. This equates to arresting someone saying that they stole, but you do not say what they stole or from where it was stolen. Please provide more detail for clarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: As I can see on the talk page that this article has had a little trouble on what exactly should be put on it and is monitored by fans of this port, please remember saying it is notable, it comply's does nothing. AfD is not a vote! Providing links to coverage by a notable website does. --Simonkoldyk 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You state that the site is monitored by fans, could you provide detailed and supporting evidence to this claim? Are you not interested in any of the articles in which you contribute? If I am a fan of Nascar, does that discount my contribution? By what authority are you to make such a claim? You say saying something is notable does not mean it is notable, yet you state the talk page is monitored by fans, does this make your claim any more notable? By what evidence do you make the claim that all contributors are fans? If you logic for deletion is subjective to the precedence of fans participating in the monitoring of a given article, then I am very concerned about what may come of this logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Would you please be more specific? Or cite an example? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

* Comment: Sure, see like [1] is an article for Halo 2 so it would prove that Halo 2 is notable, you need to find a article from a notable website about ZDaemon. --Simonkoldyk 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpy Doom Port Note that they also reference Zdoom which is nominated for deletion. You may like this reference for the Skulltag Deletion as it will serve to show how irresponsible that deletion was and why it should be restored Doom Source Ports — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

• Weak delete. What annoys me most is the insistence by obvious fans of the game to include crufty material about the game's clans. The "Criticism" section is unsourced and unverifiable, as is much of the rest of the article. No reliable third party sources to indicate its notability either, though I'll abstain if any can be found. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, per above. I'm just sick of having edit wars with people trying to get their clans link in the article. Also the whole article seems to be original research and needs to be rewrote and trimmed down. BJ^Talk 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned that an editor would be inclined to have such a subjective opinion without presenting any counter points to the contrary of what has been presented. Stating that you disagree is not notable nor verifiable. We need you to present evidence to support your claims or this situation may be used as an example to nominate many other notable articles for deletion. We must work together in the best interest of the Wikipedia community. To do otherwise is irresponsible and may draw vast consequences. As a contributing reader, I do not wish to waste time undoing such activity. We must avoid setting a negative precedence.

You state "Obvious fans" yet site no reference or proof, this does not set a good example for new contributors as you are not practicing what you preach. You should also not express how contributions make you "feel" as it has little or nothing to do with the facts, rather is shows bias due to your acknowledgement in regards to how something makes you "feel". Again, we must be careful to act in the interest of the community and set a proper example, particularly when we are held to a higher level of accountability. As we can see below, a young and very impressionable student from AZ (as per his talk) has taken to your example and represents how he "feels" here in post. We must avoid such matters. His opinion is highly subjective and rather than discussing or making reference to his opinion, he surrenders himself to simply stating how he "feels" ("I'm just sick") without presenting any supporting evidence. Nor is he open to the possibility that his issue may be entirely due to the fact that his position is incorrect or his actions are not justified. Please note how he referenced your example directly "per above". This is a real world example of how acting irresponsible can have a negative effect and open the door for biased and subjective opinions. (Please also note that rather than expressing an opinion about how I "feel" I have taken the time to cite examples of what it is I am concerned about. We must act responsibly.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

Yeah, it being "original research" (his words) can't have anything to do with it. Troll elsewhere, please. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment was in reference to his statement that the "Whole Article" was Original Research. I found that comment interesting as he also contributed to the Article in question. Thus he was contributing "Original Content" by his own admission.

As per What is a Troll? Explain errors politely and reasonably; point them towards policies, the manual of style and relevant past discussions. Don't conclude they are a troll until they have shown complete inability or unwillingness to listen to reason or to moderate their position based upon the input of others. Even in that case, it is likely better to remain silent and let others conclude the obvious instead of calling someone a troll and creating even more mayhem. It is better to humor a troll for too long than to drive away a sincere but misguided user.

Please refrain from name calling. It does not serve the Wikipedia Community nor does it help address the issue at hand. Thank you :-) 76.16.70.153 (talk · contribs)

I care this much right now. You weren't commenting on his addition to the article in question, and even if you were it is irrelevant. I can't spot any of his comments that add to the OR, merely those that remove fair chunks of it. No, you were saying that he was reasoning unfairly with emotion rather than neutrality. Not only is this unfounded (he did give reasons beyond being sickened by it), but it doesn't matter. Before all of that nonsense, you basically blamed myself for emotionally corrupting this poor student. That's uncivil, and is the very definition of trolling. Keep it up. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it your belief that he did not contribute to the article? If so, I would be happy to provide references to said. He User:Bjweeks made statements with no references.

Regarding the influencing of a young student. I never stated that you corrupted him in any way (we continue to see assumptions dominating reason and request for clarification), rather your example of casting how you felt over what your findings were based on facts, may have contributed to his post where he posted how he felt, rather than reference facts. You are clearly not giving me the benefit of the doubt as a first response. I am quite suprised to see an Administrator being presumptious to such a degree, that he/she would resort to name calling as a first response. You did not ask for me to elaborate or to clarify the intent of my post. What is uncivil sir, is not giving the beneift of the doubt, putting words into other peoples mouths, and resorting to name calling and threating bans because you don't agree with someone. I on the other hand offered to apologize if the intent of my post was misunderstood, apologized to you personal, and continue to behave in a very civil manner.

Great now I'm a "young and very impressionable student" and "mentally unstable". This is a AFD comment page, where people express opinions about the page, I'm so sorry that I didn't post every diff I have had to revert because people keep putting clan links or every paragraph on that page that is unsourced. It is also insulting to say that I can't form my own opinions. BJ^Talk 23:20, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. You are young. 2. Young people are impressionable. 3. You are a student in High School.

Thank you for your apology. Opinions about the page are reasonable and should be supported by references. The Clan links were indeed sourced as they are all listed on the front page of Zdaemon.org, Zdaemon.org is listed on GameSpy and Wikipedia, thus all notable sources. Perhaps your edits were subjective in nature and required more research before deletion? Many people tend to delete links without first discussing them. It is always prudent to discuss a deletion before assuming it is irrelevant.

1/2/3 Who cares? Your comments about be have nothing to do with we are discussing and are not well founded saying all you know about me is what is on my user page. If you couldn't tell the "apology" was sarcasm and in the case of the clans, only the clans names could be sourced not if the clans were notable nor the tidbit about them. BJ^Talk 23:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you care. If my comments have nothing to do about what we are discussing, why are you replying to them? It is best to lead by example. If you post a comment in a discussion, you should do so with the anticipation that someone may reply or question its subject matter. Thank you for acknowledging that you are sarcastic and that your apology was made without sincerity. It will help myself and perhaps others in putting weight into much of what you say as it may be sarcastic or made without sincerity.

• Delete since, like other Doom source port Skulltag, ZDaemon has no coverage by reliable sources, thus failing WP:V. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GameSpy Notable Source Please do more research in the future :-) Also, please take note to his basis for nominating this article for deletion, he is referencing a prior deletion, which, quite possible due to reference provided herein, may be been deleted without proper cause. A perfect example of my concern as it relates the effect a precedence may have on future decisions and actions on the part of contributors and editors alike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

That link goes to a listing of Doom source ports. It is not an article about ZDaemon, but rather lists ZDaemon as another source port of Doom. To pass WP:V, it must have non-trivial coverage - that is, being something more than part of a simple list. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your logic states that only articles that discuss a given topic are notable? Could you elaborate please. Reasoning with your logic, if Google had a link to Zdaemon on it's front page stating that Zdaemon was a source port that you may wish examine, it would not lend any weight to the notability of Zdaemon? Many references have been provided.

• Delete Due to the fact that other Doom source port was deleted due to the reasons NeoChaosX brought up. HarrisonHopkins 02:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And here we have an opinion being formed based on the opinion of another contributor, who's original opinion may have been based on a false precedent. Gentlepersons, I highly recommend you take notice to these concerns for the benefit of the Wikipedia community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

• Redirect (possibly merging whatever is verifiable) to Doom source port. Tizio 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not DeleteDue to recent facts presented on pages discussion. Notable sources and presented and need to be properly addressed. If this gets deleted, then I fear that it will be used as an example and excuse for others to delete other similar articles which fall under the pardigm for which this article has been nominated for deletion for. Other Source Ports being deleted does not justify deleting other source ports. As per WP:AFD we must be careful about letting prior precedence serve as grounds for parallel actions. This could lead to anarchy as contributors make aggressively nominate articles for deletion citing like-kind articles which have already been deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

• • Comment: Finally, I would like reference Problems where deletion might not be needed more specifically;

    {stub}, {mergeto¦article}, {cleanup}, {POV check}, {POV check}, {cleanup-verify}

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)
• Merge and redirect to Doom source port. There is an ongoing effort to merge these source port articles together. --- RockMFR 00:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doom source port; the effort to merge source port articles together is now finished. Bloodshedder 03:46, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Bloodshedder. It looks like that was a lot of work. Thank you for helping out here and bringing some sanity to the situation. You should request nomination as an administrator. Rather than wasting your time with name calling and casting your opinion, you used your efforts and intelligence to provide a solution. You are a great example of how an Administrator should conduct themselves. Bravo!

• Redirect to Doom source port.--QuasarTE 04:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doom source port, per above. BJ^Talk 05:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Thank you for your time everyone. It would appear that the majority is agreeing that a redirect may be the right decision moving forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.70.153 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: Well if non of the source ports are notable, I don't understand why it would work if they were all just put in one page. Also they are already all listed in the page before the merging began. --Simonkoldyk 20:03, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not that they aren't notable at all, they just aren't notable enough for their own articles. They still deserve to be described, plus have their articles on the Doom Wiki linked to. Bloodshedder 21:11, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• You are correct I do believe they should be mentioned; but, there is already a list of all the ports listed there with a link to a website if they have them and stuff about them; I don't see why they need another paragraph above as well. --Simonkoldyk 21:24, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• They need to be mentioned specifically because they are a) historically or technologically notable (ex. Boom, nxDoom) or b) fairly popular and in widespread use (ex. ZDoom). Bloodshedder 00:14, 2 December 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.