Doom Wiki:RFC/Missing PWAD articles

RFC
The following PWAD articles are linked from the ZDoom Wiki and therefore count against us by being 404s: Please prioritize creation of at least stub-quality articles for each of these after verifying their notability (almost all are Top 100 Wads or Cacoward winners/runners-up), and then either (if created) strike through the link in this list, or change the link to a deleted template so that it is not an active hyperlink.
 * The Adventures of Square
 * Astrostein
 * Astrostein 2 (redirected, see below)
 * Astrostein 3 (redirected, see below)
 * Cheogsh
 * Cheogsh 2
 * Community Is Falling 3
 * Dark 7
 * Diaz
 * Doom Raider: Crypt of the Vile
 * Happy Time Circus
 * Khorus (WAD)
 * Nimrod: Project Doom
 * Project MSX
 * ❌ (no plausible assertions of notability; see below)
 * Temple of the Lizard Men 2
 * Tribute - This is not the best wad in the world
 * Unloved
 * Valhalla

Astrostein mods
Notability seems pretty dubious. Many people apparently thought they sucked, at least for gameplay (though the third was better). We have precedent for putting a whole series into one article when they have a lot in common (Torment and Torture, 32in24). Further opinions are welcome, but if I had to decide now, I'd redirect all three to WolfenDOOM (Doom). Ryan W (talk) 20:58, 13 February 2016 (CST)


 * I would be OK with that. They could always be split off into their own articles if someone who's a fanatic about them has enough to say on their behalf. A redirect is a good interim until and unless such should happen. --Quasar (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2016 (CST)

Real World
Again, notability looks slippery. Of course it's difficult to prove a negative, but so far I'm only finding stuff like this. Was the thread starter garnering consensus, or were they just hoovering up every WAD on one person's favorites list? (I have the same question about our list, but that's another discussion.)

A prominent community member did review the sequel and said it was nothing special, consisting largely of elaborate homages to stock maps. Looking at this file, I'd say the same: some blueprints are almost exact copies, and a few levels are so small and blocky I can't believe someone had the nerve to release them in 2003 (according to one idgames post, it includes maps the author made at age 14).

My opinion is only that, however; I'm still baffled that Fava Beans made the Top 100. But it did. So is there another angle I'm not seeing? Ryan W (talk) 09:42, 14 February 2016 (CST)


 * As we mentioned on IRC this one was a false positive that is only linked from the "automatic compatibility" page and apparently has very little notability. I can't see a compelling reason to give it an article aside from it being linked to, but as we discussed, it may be a zdoom wiki issue if they are linking to us for articles we don't intend to ever have. --Quasar (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2016 (CST)
 * I would suggest creating an author stub page since at the very least Daniel's NeoDoom has its own article and then redirect from Real World to the author stub. --KMX E XII (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2016 (CST)
 * However, I'll admit that the NeoDoom article itself is hardly emblematic of the Wiki's standards, but that is a story for another time --KMX E XII (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2016 (CST)


 * Hi Kmxexii. I believe this RFC is more narrowly focused than notability, i.e. "are we likely to get 404 penalties for the rest of time if we don't have this title?".  I wasn't trying to judge notability all by myself in an hour, which isn't how we do things here, only whether the notability were obviously high enough to be a common search term.  The evidence suggests not.


 * That doesn't preclude you from creating an author article in the normal way, if you think he deserves one, which would then be subject to the usual discussions if anyone questions it. It then seems like common sense that if an author were notable but not each WAD, the remaining WAD names would redirect to the author.    Ryan W (talk) 21:48, 15 February 2016 (CST)


 * Oh, sorry, I'm aware of the scope of the RFC. I was attempting to suggest a measure somewhere between eating the SEO hit and making a full-blown article, the latter of which this conversation appears to run against. I wouldn't mind making an author stub myself considering that it would be a simple, exhaustive list, but for the fact that I do not have easy access to the archive frontend where I currently am. --KMX E XII (talk) 22:07, 15 February 2016 (CST)

The Adventures of Square
I think this was actually me clicking a couple of the ZDoom wiki links (or so my browser history implies). Are the next two 404s Soulcrusher and Extreme Weapon Pack, and if so, did all three come from the same IP? :D   Ryan W (talk) 18:31, 19 February 2016 (CST)


 * I think I may have seen Extreme Weapon Pack. I didn't add ALLLL the URLs as it started to get exhausting when new ones started showing up :P However, people clicking on them at zdoom.org isn't what causes this - all this is necessary is for Googlebot to try to crawl the link from there to here, and it'll show up as an externally referred 404 in Webmaster Tools. Lets me know how people are linking to us - a recent rash of "less likely" redirects I created were due to such issues. For example somebody on a gaming forum just assumed we had a page named "Aliens" because, well, why wouldn't we right? :P :P :P I created it as a hub for all Aliens related mods, since that makes sense as something to show in regards to such a general query (even if public memory is most likely searching for Aliens TC directly). --Quasar (talk) 21:10, 19 February 2016 (CST)