Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombie Master

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 of the debate was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zombie Master

Not notable - hasn't even been released yet according to template on page. Reads like an advertisement. Morgan Wick 00:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete the gamecruft! A completely, utterly non-notable mod. "Zombie Master"+"Half-Life 2" gets less than 70 unique Google hits. The thing hasn't even been released yet- in fact, it's in alpha, which means it isn't even close to release! The article is also an advertisement, of course. -- Kicking222 01:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete since there's no notability asserted, besides the fact the mod hasn't even been released yet. Gotta love that the design team is made up of forum-ish names like "qckbeam" and "Pi|Mu|Rho." Aplomado ^talk 01:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Forum-ish names? Names like Aplomado you mean? This isn't the internet or anything where anonymity is allowed. Has less than 70 unique Google hits? I didn't know that was wiki's standard for deleting things now. If you actually looked at their page you would see they have done lots of work and I don't think they should be repayed by wiki deleting their article because someone didn't think the mod was popular enough. —Preceding unsigned comment added by S1dra (talk • contribs)
  • Well, actually that is Wikipedia's standard for deleting things. Give me one good reason why this mod is notable, and I'll reconsider my vote. Aplomado ^talk 02:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - aim for the brain! Artw 02:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn mod. -- Vary | Talk 02:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable modification. --Starionwolf 03:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete If it gets released then perhaps it can have an article--Brother William 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not notable. GassyGuy 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --Coredesat 04:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per nom, etc... Please also see No more room in hell. Wickethewok 04:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable software WP:SOFTWARE refers.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  04:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable. --Terence Ong _{(talk | contribs)} 04:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above, game mods such as this are not notable. Jammo (SM247) 04:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. *drew 05:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - we didn't ask for, or condone this article. Make it go away. --PiMuRho 06:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Hell, it's crazy, I'm developing it, and I'm voting for a deletion of this. An overzealous fan seems to have transposed stuff from our description and created an article out of it. If we ever became notable, and it was worth writing about, then I'd be happy to let a page exist. So, yeah, deletable under non-notable, and it's also kinda crufty and not all that encyclopaedic. --Angry Lawyer 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete I don't know if it's possible to get any more of a confirmation of non-notability than a developer of the program saying such. fuzzy510 07:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Yeah, I'm a friend of Lawyer's and I edited it a little from what it was - which was totally surreal - but we were debating what to do with it. As it happened you lovely people did the job. :D. --Sulkdodds 09:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. It's a game mod... there are extraordinary situations in which one of these things becomes worthy of note in an encylopedia, but this isn't it. - Motor (talk) 10:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable game mod, hasn't even been released. Note the k3wl list of creator d00d handles. JIP | Talk 12:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

CommentYou mean like all the k3wl d00d handles on this very page? --PiMuRho 13:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Bare in mind that we "k3wl creator d00ds" didn't create this page, therefore didn't affix our names to it, and we same "d00ds" are supporting the deletion of this article. So yeah, be a little nicer. --Angry Lawyer 13:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, again after authors transferring content to Valve Developer Community wiki. --HiddenInPlainSight 12:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, but whilst I'm on the side of deletion for this, what makes this any more or less notable than any other modification in the community, considering it has had magazine coverage, interviews and working demonstrations to the public? Mods like No More Room in Hell and Black Mesa Source are certainly no more notable than Zombie Master is. --86.128.14.79 12:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Black Mesa: Source was kept (even over my objections), due to it actually nearing finished state and it was also picking up mentions from (dead-tree) game press and commendations from Valve, IIRC, which, in my book, certainly makes it a bit more notable than a mod that describes itself as "alpha". And it was actually deleted before on exact same grounds that this mod is being considered for deletion for... Does Zombie Master get this sort of press yet? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Well, considering it has apparently made no or little progress since then, do you think that might be perhaps a lie on the behalf of those might want to keep it in Wikipedia? Secondly, Alpha fits the bill very nicely for how BMS was presenting itself to you guys. In addition, whilst Zombie Master hasn't been mentioned by Valve, I don't really think that's overly relevant, since that seems to be semi-linked to the amount of screenshots of rendered models a team can produce. A German magazine has picked up on Zombie Master and wrote a little piece on it with an accompanying screenshot. So er, what's the difference between the two? --86.128.14.79 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think having media mentions etc. is a be-all, end-all reason to keep; a mod that's released and gets media mentions is much better than a mod that's not. Media mentions would be a "mitigating circumstance". =) BM:S's vote ended with No Consensus. If someone renominated that thing, say, 6 months after the previous AfD, and stressed hard enough that there's not been much progress, you'd probably soon see a smouldering crater where an article used to be. At best, it'd be a case for merge. WP can be lenient what comes to promises, but not exactly lenient what comes to late promises. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
        • Hm, so ultimately this comes down to the owner of the thing they want to promote wanting or not wanting their article enough to buy themselves some more time? Interesting, but I think this is a pretty good sign of how WP has some weird beauracracy issues. Anyway, delete this, buy colour me not too happy that other, similarly worthy modifications are allowed to stay based on very little else other than some rather biased words. --86.128.14.79 15:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definately not notable Feath 13:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete wd --Xyrael ^T 14:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete vaporware/NN B.ellis 14:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment Much as I agree with the deletion - vaporware? Hardly. --PiMuRho 15:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Unreleased = nope, not yet worthy of an article of its own, sorry. Welcome back if it's actually ever released for real. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment This looks pretty unanimous (thankfully). How long until this page is sent into oblivion? And should I go and find all the pages that link to this soon-nonexistant page and remove the linkage? Because otherwise they'll be pointing at a "create this page" bit, and it'll probably end up getting recreated in an even cruftier form. --193.114.208.194 07:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, wasn't logged in... --Angry Lawyer 07:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, the discussion is up for 5 days after it's opened; some time after that (minutes, hours, days, probably not weeks though =), an admin will come along, close the discussion and make a judgment on what to do based on it. See Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. As for what links here, that's pretty easy, see here. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable mod. Falls well beyond requirements that are needed for own article.--Auger Martel 07:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It looks like it will be notable if it's ever released, but right now, not so much. Ace of Sevens 14:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

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.