Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedoom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Doom WAD#Miscellaneous. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 11:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freedoom

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is undersubstantiated evidence that Freedoom, basically a free and open-source software version of Doom, is a notable subject. It appears that the only reason it could be notable is that it has been used as a free alternative to the commercial game that could be used to play Doom WADs and test mods normally designed for that game. It is a shame as this free encyclopedia loves free stuff. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 18:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Doom_WAD#Miscellaneous I was unable to find anything besides the passing mentions and a student newspaper (which makes it unreliable) coverage at [1]. The article contains either WP:PRIMARY, or unreliable references like a fan blog Doomworld. Fails WP:GNG, which requires in-depth multiple coverage in reliable sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Basically, the only source that can verify the facts of the article is the official GitHub page, the game itself being a GitHub project. Too bad this FOSS is not as notable as Tux Racer. On the bright side, media related to the game can still be used throughout Wikimedia projects. For example, some projects such as the German Wikipedia lack fair use because their primary countries simply do not have it (although ideally they and everywhere else should), so in the case of that Wikipedia's Doom article, it uses a Freedoom screenshot. Some other projects such as Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata voluntarily decline fair use and allow such free and usable—if still non-notable—media. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 20:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not aware of any Wikipedia guideline which states that a student newspaper is not a reliable source. The Washburn Review appears to be a reliable source, since “The Washburn Review is a member newspaper of the Associated Press (AP) {...} The Review is a recipient of the 2006-2007 National Newspaper Pacemaker Award.”. In a previous discussion on using student newspapers to establish notability, it was pointed out that “if the Harvard Crimson printed an article about an a cappella group from UCLA, that would tend to help establish notability for the group because that would mean that the group was receiving attention outside their own college community”. Same deal with the Washburn Review and FreeDoom; this is not something local to that college, so the Washburn Review’s discussion of FreeDoom does establish notability. See also another discussion, where consensus was that student newspapers like the Washburn Review, which has received awards, are generally reliable. Samboy (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Strong Keep~~ Soft Merge to Doom WAD; preserve the history of this page. There is coverage in two reliable sources: Article about FreeDoom from a large univerity’s newspaper; note that I am aware of no Wikipedia guideline which states that a university student newspaper is *not* a reliable source. Student newspapers have fact checkers and editors and are not self-published. In addition, there is an article with entire section about FreeDoom, further establishing enough notability to preserve this page’s history. There is also a full article in French article which may be self-published; I don’t know enough French to determine the site’s publishing standards. There are a large number of passing mentions, which means this is notable enough to keep the page’s history around (otherwise, we will end up with the situation like with TripleA, where the article gets deleted multiple times until it survives AfD): “it does include maps from the Freedoom Project” “it’s such a comprehensive mod that even FreeDoom or maybe even the Doom shareware episode will do” “the (free) Freedoom will suffice, if you don’t own Doom 2.” “Note that the game is compatible with FreeDoom, the open source initiative to bypass the legalities of Doom's code being open source, while Doom's engine isn't.”. I will also mention FreeDoom being discussed in multiple books.

I am changing my vote so we don’t have to relist this page and can reach consensus; there’s enough reliable sources discussing FreeDoom to make a section in Doom WAD but probably not enough to make a standalone page yet, but I see no reason to completely nuke this page either. Samboy (talk) 06:27, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed it to redirect since you have found an excellent WP:ATD. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 08:55, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.