Talk:WadEdit

Notability?
Article seems to indicate that it wasn't yet released, which is our usual threshold for notability. --Quasar (talk) 02:07, 9 July 2018 (CDT)
 * I found a few threads on Doomworld. Apparently it was developed by someone using the screen name "loser", and people (especially ReX, who made  ) have tested it, so I suppose beta versions were available and it just never had a final stable release. Its website was on a free host and therefore expired long ago, since even the July 2001 capture on archive.org merely shows a "domain available, register it now"  button. Ultimately, it's probably not very relevant and info will be very hard to obtain. --Gez (talk) 11:01, 9 July 2018 (CDT)


 * The fact it did, once exist, and there exists these crumbs of feedback on it, mean I lean towards having an article, although the current one is not worth keeping in its current empty state, and I'm not volunteering to improve it. I guess that means I'd support a VfD. -- Shambler (talk) 06:21, 10 July 2018 (CDT)


 * I'd prefer keep given the circumstances, but I'd update it to provide at least the info we have here. --Quasar (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2018 (CDT)


 * IIRC we've always accepted beta releases provided they were public. This is sort of necessary because a project can be paused or abandoned at any time, due to RL commitments or whatever, or the creator(s) may simply never feel it is quite finished.  A number of mods have even won Cacowards as betas or demos.  Quantifying community impact is tricky given how many forums and review sites have gone dark, but historically it's much rarer for a programming project to reach public release than a WAD (more specialized skill set; harder to fix all showstopper bugs), so IMO there's no harm in calling those inherently notable as our written guideline does.    Ryan W (living fossil) 04:53, 16 July 2018 (CDT)