Edit-paste.svgThe content associated with this talk page was considered for deletion, and either was deleted, or was kept after a period of discussion. This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.

I'm nominating this for deletion in accordance with the notability guidelines. It is not notable because it has not yet been released. Fraggle 00:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  I think it's unclear whether "released" has to mean "released in putatively final form": see here and here.  Also, AFAICT, a substantial number of WADs are released as "betas" and then never updated because some RL consideration prevents the author from finishing it, yet they remain in the archive, so theoretically we can have articles about them.    Ryan W 20:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete, when and if it gets finished we can create another article. oTHErONE (Contribs) 07:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't see how this needs to be deleted because there are betas out, and I will post links to where they can be downloaded. 2b is coming out soon because I know this and I am WartornCove. Another thing, please re-read next time. It perfectly states that there are betas out. 2b isn't even finished yet, that's the only build that's not released.User:WartornCove User Talk:WartornCove 13:57, 8 May 2007 (GMT)
  • Beta versions are not a proper release. Fraggle 22:41, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand what you mean by this, but there doesn't seem to be a consensus about it yet.  Aren't Odamex, Omgifol, and WinDEU considered betas?    Ryan W 22:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A point of contention here is that those programs are mostly feature-complete, usable utilities/etc. that can be put to good use. A beta of a PWAD is arguably none of those things - it's incomplete, doesn't offer the full experience, etc. Bloodshedder 02:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that depends on the designer's standards for when a WAD is ready for full playtesting, but that's another issue.  :>   If you're just talking about feature-completeness, however, shouldn't we also delete Doom Arcade and EarthBound Doom?    Ryan W 16:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Personally I dont think Doom Wiki should be documenting every PWAD ever made unless they are recognised by some criteria:
- they were created by employees or contractors of ID Software/Raven
- they were created by someone of notoriety (Columbine High levels)
- they are recognised Megawads or levels by a major contributor by the Doom community
- the WADs showed some groundbreaking technique exploiting a feature of the vanilla Doom engine (Requiems over-under bridges in MAP13 comes to mind)
So by this, some "promised" 4-level WAD by an unknown Author would not qualify.
IDLover 13:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I never added that it was going to be a 4-level WAD. I said it would be a Soon-To-Be megawad. Within each beta are probably gonna be expanded or new levels. I never promised that it would only be 4-levels. WartornCove 12:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I never implied it was. In fact I didnt even look at what you were doing or had done. I could just as easily as said a WAD with -10 levels (yes, minus 10). All I gave was some offered criteria which I thought was sensible. Otherwise Doom Wiki could document every one of the 3rd-party DOOM 1 WADs that were offered with the Doom Master Levels - which in my opinion is not worth doing. If I started offering a WAD file to the Doom community, I would not expect a Doom Wiki entry at all, but instead would expect the Doom community to suggest that to Doom Wiki if it worked out that was a really original offering.   Nothing personal here, I would rather you spent your time improving your WAD-creation skills and creative design. If you then have many Doom players raving about your levels, and preferably a MegaWad, then I will add it myself :-)   IDLover 18:42, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (Indenting for clarity... I hope.)  See here for some previous discussion.  IMHO the controversial point would be your third one, because people would disagree over how to define "recognized" (just as they currently do about who is a "notable person").  Also, it seems like you are excluding groundbreaking techniques in non-vanilla engines, like the ACS stuff (can't think of an example offhand but I'm sure that Jdowland will), as well as one-hit wonders by otherwise unremembered authors (Atrium and Flash come to mind).
  • I grant what you are saying. It is subjective and you want objectivity.   As a start, I would recognise WAD authors who worked on the Doom Master Levels, episode 4 of Thy Flesh Consumed, Plutonia & TNT and the PWAD MegaWads recognised by Compet-N, WAD authors who gained subsequent employment by ID Software/Raven personel and finally Total Conversions. That would be a pretty big list of people.   Also I had no-intention of cutting out ground-breaking techniques pioneered in Boom, PrBoom, ZDoom or JDoom shown in various WADs. IDLover 18:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What Fredrik was saying, I think, is that people and websites are by definition part of the Doom community for a limited time, whereas WADs linger forever like any other piece of software, so perhaps a finite standard of "notability" can be sensibly defined only for the former group.  On the other hand, you are correct that there are an awful lot of less significant releases, and the idgames archive already exists to catalog them.  (I may write a walkthrough article for 1_ON_1.WAD as a test case, to see if anyone VfDs it.)    Ryan W 18:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Ok, you can delete this article if you want. I don't care anymore. I'm still archiving and maintaining the wad though, and these maps are gonna be a pain because I'm the only one even doing the entire thing. I won't edit the article anymore. I'll just wait until it's released, then maybe I'll post an article about it. Also another thing, I added the word conflict because the file keeps on getting corrupt. I don't know how they are happening but I'm glad I keep back-ups with me. Until then.... User:WartornCove 19:55, 9 May 2007 (GMT)