| Revision as of 19:47, 30 November 2006 editConsumed Crustacean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,320 edits →[]: Buzz off← Previous edit | Revision as of 19:49, 30 November 2006 edit undoConsumed Crustacean (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,320 edits unsigned templates all 'roundNext edit → | ||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
| :{{la|ZDaemon}} | :{{la|ZDaemon}} | ||
| Its a source port of ], the article dosen't comply with the ] guideline nor with official policies ] or ]. ] 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | Its a source port of ], the article dosen't comply with the ] guideline nor with official policies ] or ]. ] 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Please be more specific, in what way does it not comply? I read ] 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. | ::Please be more specific, in what way does it not comply? I read ] 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. {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| * '''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. --] 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | * '''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. --] 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: 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. | :: 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. {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| : Would you please be more specific? Or cite an example? Thank you. {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | : Would you please be more specific? Or cite an example? Thank you. {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| :: * '''Comment:''' Sure, see like 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. --] 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | :: * '''Comment:''' Sure, see like 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. --] 19:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::: 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 | ::: 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 {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| *'''Weak delete'''. What annoys me most is the insistence by obvious fans of the game to include ] 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. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Weak delete'''. What annoys me most is the insistence by obvious fans of the game to include ] 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. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :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 Misplaced Pages 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. | :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 Misplaced Pages 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.) | :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.) {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| ::Yeah, it being "] can't have anything to do with it. Troll elsewhere, please. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ::Yeah, it being "]" (his words) can't have anything to do with it. Troll elsewhere, please. -- ] <small>(])</small> 19:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' since, like other Doom source port ], ZDaemon has no coverage by reliable sources, thus failing ]. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' since, like other Doom source port ], ZDaemon has no coverage by reliable sources, thus failing ]. ] <font size="1"> (], ])</font> 00:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
| *'''Redirect''' (possibly merging whatever is verifiable) to ]. ] 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | *'''Redirect''' (possibly merging whatever is verifiable) to ]. ] 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Do not Delete'''Due 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. | *'''Do not Delete'''Due 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 ] 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. {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
| Other Source Ports being deleted does not justify deleting other source ports. As per ] 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. | |||
| * '''Comment:''' Finally, I would like reference more specifically; <blockquote>{stub}, {mergeto¦article}, {cleanup}, {POV check}, {POV check}, {cleanup-verify} | * '''Comment:''' Finally, I would like reference more specifically; <blockquote>{stub}, {mergeto¦article}, {cleanup}, {POV check}, {POV check}, {cleanup-verify} | ||
| </blockquote> | </blockquote> {{unsigned|76.16.70.153}} | ||
Revision as of 19:49, 30 November 2006
ZDaemon
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)
- 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)
- 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 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)
- 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)
- * Comment: Sure, see like 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)
- 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)
- 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 01:47, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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 Misplaced Pages community.
- Redirect (possibly merging whatever is verifiable) to Doom source port. Tizio 13:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- 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)
Categories: