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 merge to Doom source port, which has already been done to the extent such content can be encyclopedic (which long features lists are generally not). Therefore, redirected. This outcome is most likely to be at least acceptable to most of the earlier commenters. Whether to expand or to reduce this content on Doom source port is now an editorial question. Sandstein 06:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ZDoom[edit]

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

It's about a source port of Doom; but, there is no evidence it meets the notability guideline WP:SOFTWARE nor official policy WP:V and WP:RS. Simonkoldyk 08:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 09:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, one of the most popular (if not the most popular) source ports of doom, over 100,000 google hits on the name, including coverage on IGN, Gamespy, sourceforge, and freshmeat. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have any particular links of said coverage? All I can find is the game's name on IGN et al. (no reviews or anything), and the standard news posts on Sourceforge / Freshmeat that every project that registers there gets. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Night Gyr - Vicer 10:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:SOFTWARE. Although there are pages about this game on IGN, GameSpy and other websites, they are nothing more than the basic information about the game, such as a small description and some details. GameSpy hasn't even given it a GameSpy Score. WP:SOFTWARE explicitly states:

  This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews except for the following:
  - Media reprints of press releases, other publications where the author or manufacturer talks about the software, and advertising for the software. Newspaper stories that do not credit a reporter or a news service and simply present company news in an uncritical or positive way may be treated as press releases unless there is evidence to the contrary.
  - Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report version releases without comment, price listings in product catalogues, or listings on software download sites.

  Note the bolded part. So I'm going to have to go with delete. Jayden54 10:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, they were covered by PC Gamer in the print edition way back in 2000. I read it when it came out, and the story is mentioned here, but PC Gamer content isn't online so I can't give you a link to the article itself. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 10:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I have all the PC Gamers from 2000, and the only mention of ZDoom was in a column about Doom source ports in general. ZDoom was listed as one of those ports, but was not the focus of the article, making that coverage trivial. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 16:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what trivial means here. Trivial means something like an entry in a directory, not an article specifically about a handful of programs Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unless they actually make comment on the thing, then it's trivial. --Simonkoldyk 00:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have the entire article right here. It's a small sidebar column that's mostly about how Doom source ports make the game look better. Here's what they say about ZDoom:

          "ZDoom. http://zdoom.notgod.com/ Includes console, jumping optional OpenGL support, and support for 'dehacked' mods like the Aliens TC"

          Basically nothing we don't already know about the port. This is nothing more than a trivial mention. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 08:43, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. EASILY passes WP:SOFTWARE. There is no question of this. --- RockMFR 13:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How does it "EASILY pass" WP:SOFTWARE?, you need to show proof not just you say so.--Simonkoldyk 17:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Both IGN and GameSpot contain content for this game. GameSpot even hosts the software, which generally would be reason enough to meet WP:SOFTWARE and/or WP:GAMES (both of which are proposed notability guidelines). --- RockMFR 23:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• or listings on software download sites., having the content on GameSpot, unless they write an article on it, its trivial; it dosen't prove notability. --Simonkoldyk 23:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Precedent says otherwise. All interpretations of notability standards for games I've ever seen would point to keeping this article. --- RockMFR 00:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Can you show me an example of this? --Simonkoldyk 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I can encourage you to go through old AfD logs if you want to see past precedent... --- RockMFR 00:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, ZDoom seems to be one of the first and largest projects to come from the opening of the Doom source code but I'm not sure we need a page for every Doom port though. BJ^Talk 14:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Simply claiming it passes WP:SOFTWARE doesn't mean it does, or that it's notable or even verifiable. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 14:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep, meets WP:SOFTWARE criteria. Terence Ong 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:How does it meet WP:SOFTWARE criteria?--Simonkoldyk 17:17, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, very popular and feature-rich Doom source port. BTW it's still alive. --Ysangkok 17:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "very popular"? Can you prove that with links to notable sources that have talked about it. --Simonkoldyk 17:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I beleave that the ZDoom is quite notable, because it has a lot of features, that other Doom-port haven't got. It is, as far as I know, the only Doom-port that plays Strife. Feature list --Andersersej 19:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Just because it has a lot of features that other Doom-ports don't have dosen't make it notable, you need to show how it passes WP:SOFTWARE. --Simonkoldyk 19:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete There are no claims of notability and appears mostly to be spam. Relatively little content. The only content I see is that Zdoom is an open source port of Doom with many features. (one sentence article) It seems that it would be worth mentioning it on the Doom page however. To those who want this kept I would more explictly say as others have: Clean it up, establish notability, improve references, remove the spam/features section. It does get 100K plus ghits so it may be possible to fix these problems.--Nick Y. 01:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • features section != spam. Phrased a little too much like an ad, but that doesn't make the thing spam. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 02:52, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete No notablility, and no coverage from good sources. HarrisonHopkins 02:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doom source ports, possibly merging evey info that is verifiable there. The general issue of source ports appear notable (see the cited article above), but this invidual one has not been proved so. Still, a redirect would be useful as a plausible search term. Tizio 13:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Doom source port. In fact, I'm working on merging the info (and of related articles ZDaemon, GZDoom, and the former Skulltag article) to that page. Bloodshedder 02:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: The merging is complete, for all source port articles already on Wikipedia. ZDoom can be safely redirected to Doom source port. Bloodshedder 03:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Doom source port. I helped a bit with the rewrite of this page and I think that the information there, along with links to the corresponding info on the Doom Wiki, is more uniform, more useful, and more appropriate for an encyclopedia.--QuasarTE 04:27, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 07:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect and merge into Doom source port Lakn 17:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the Doom source port page dosen't make sense to move them all too, they are all non-notable, not verifable things your just putting in to one article. Still delete. --Simonkoldyk 20:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Not notable enough for an article" does not mean the same thing as "not notable to be worthy of mention at all". Bloodshedder 21:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect as above, since ZDoom is only notable as related to the Doom source port project. --Alan Au 01:41, 5 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.