Difference between revisions of "Talk:Obsidian (source port)"
From DoomWiki.org
(→Deletion) |
m (→Deletion) |
||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
: I agree with the decision. There are equally minor ports already documented, with one release ever. A particularly significant one you'd see no argument from anybody about happens to be [[MBF]]. I pity da foo who would try to delete that article ;) --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] 17:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | : I agree with the decision. There are equally minor ports already documented, with one release ever. A particularly significant one you'd see no argument from anybody about happens to be [[MBF]]. I pity da foo who would try to delete that article ;) --[[User:Quasar|Quasar]] 17:09, 18 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
| + | ::I have a personal fondness for [[Fusion]]. --[[User:Gez|Gez]] 10:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 05:26, 19 August 2013
Deletion
Delete, dead source port with zero releases. GhostlyDeath 07:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
- Keep; what's this then? Development was no doubt discontinued, but we've always said that any port or utility with a release, stable or not, gets an article because there are so few and no one else is ever going to document them. Ryan W 04:16, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm going to de-tag this based on the above. There is the view that only projects meeting some standard of prominence should be documented, but coding and releasing a usable program is probably significant in itself — we've only been more restrictive with events that come and go easily (e.g. clans, STO accounts, WAD teams whose first two actions are registering a domain name and choosing a soundtrack). Ryan W 15:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)