Talk:Robocop

The 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 This page has been retained for historical reference regarding the deletion process, or in case of future restoration of any deleted content.

Robocop is actually a weapons mod, and an incredibly bad one at that too. IMO this article should be deleted. Janizdreg 13:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

delete - Though it is actually a megawad now, there is one rationale I would delete it under: if it's standalone as it claims, then it's illegal: It contains unmodified Doom 2 wall patches. -- TheDarkArchon 14:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, can someone post a link? 58.178.43.91 14:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

See the article itself. -- TheDarkArchon 19:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, being a "bad" mod, having illegal Doom 2 resources, having a badly written/formatted article, having an annoying creator who re-uploaded the WAD to /idgames for weeks on end, etc. are not valid criteria for deleting the article. Bloodshedder 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Might be bad, but is published, and therefore meets our requirements for having an article. The article does need some help, though. Sarge Baldy 20:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep, for all the above reasons. It does suck shit though. :D oTHErONE _(Contribs) 11:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Which version should the article be about?

The version of Robocop that exists in the archives and what is linked to here is a weapons mod, so shouldn't this article be about that version, not the illegal standalone one? Janizdreg 22:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Both versions meet our notability criteria, as Bloodshedder says above, so each version should have an article.    Ryan W 13:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Re-delete

So, if the article was kept because being published made it notable enough, does it being unpublished make it sufficiently unnotable to be unkept? --Gez 11:15, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even terribly convinced by the arguments that were put forward last time it was kept. Delete. --Quasar 15:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Weak delete.  There's nothing wrong with the voting above — that was our standard in 2006.  More recently, though, people have tended to ask whether a mod stands out from the crowd somehow (see inconclusive discussions here).  As Bloodshedder says, poor quality, bootleg resources, and an obnoxious author aren't reasons to delete, but they aren't reasons to keep either, because they happen so often!  In the case of Robocop, was one of these traits so extreme as to create a lasting impression in the fan community, and are there sources to say so?    Ryan W 20:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Uh, it's been a while, but, delete. --Dynamo128 (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2023 (CDT)

I don't understand what mod this article is about and who made it? The idgames link is dead and has been removed, and I couldn't find any information about the mod on Doomworld. If there are no traces left, then it is obvious to me that the page must also disappear. Delete. --Nockson (talk) 11:24, 9 November 2023 (CST)

The thing is that this mod is actually pretty significant - It is a fully custom game (Comes with its own IWAD) made for a fully custom port. I think the main issue is that the author of said port is rather infamous to the point of being pushed into obscurity. I do have some time on my hands in December to get back at these things, sadly my work and social life keep me much away from Doom. Ill never be gone, but i do need time. Keep, but it needs a proper article. --Redneckerz (talk) 16:59, 9 November 2023 (CST)

The article as it is is completely unsatisfactory either way, and given the WAD's close relation to the port, it would be better to discuss it in a sub-section on CDoom's page rather than keep the dead-weight article around. It could always be re-created later as a redirect or something. The point is that virtually none of the information currently on the page is worth keeping as it is. --Dynamo128 (talk) 17:00, 9 November 2023 (CST)

I went ahead with deletion as per consensus; rather than deleting outright though, I've changed it into a redirect to Robocop Doom. Fraggle (talk) 21:11, 13 November 2023 (CST)

There was one dissenting voice, so technically it was a delete by majority. But Redneckerz first commented 3.5 years ago below and nothing happened since, so I don't think the delete was premature. --Xymph (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2023 (CST)

Re-keep

Keep. - Essentially per Bloodshedder's 2006 post. The last talk about this was 6 years ago. Looking at the /idgames upload records, the whole CDoom reupload spiel has been extinct and the only activity is redelegated to its SourceForge page.

With the harmful aspect being remediated through time, focus should be on what the project entails. And with that in mind, its an interesting project: Supposely standalone (so constitutes as a seperate game), requires an obscure port, but does contain illegal resources. With the toxicity removed, the only actual minus thus is the illegal resources part.

That to me should not be enough for deletion, or we could just flag Grezzo 2 outright for doing the exact same thing. Seeing as Grezzo 2 is still here (and kicking!), So should Robocop, focussing on what it does rather than what it is known for.

Besides, Since the last talk this page has existed for 6 years anyway. Therefore a keep, i'd rather expand upon the ports and these projects even when they aren't high quality. --Redneckerz (talk) 10:38, 19 May 2020 (CDT)