Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catacomb (video game)


 * 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 keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; Music1201  talk  04:33, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Catacomb (video game)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Largely unsourced and all potential sources are about Carmack's own history rather than this game as its own entity. (Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) ) I'd support a redirect to John Carmack, as was reverted. Catacomb 3-D is another option, but I haven't looked into its sourcing/longevity. czar 09:22, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions.  czar  09:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * keep. There are reliable secondary sources online, for instance the open source'ing of them (finding the magazine sources from that time is harder, but they should exist). Also, id software and Carmack are highly influential parts of the gaming history and their early works are part of it. Shaddim (talk) 09:45, 8 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. I never heard of this game before, but I would expect even the more obscure games made by Carmack to satisfy the GNG.  It's a bit sparse, but there's still coverage: this interview at NowGamer describes some of the design and leadup; this story at IGN describes how it fit into their legacy and later games; this announcement at bit-tech shows that the game has a lasting legacy in terms of sustained interest in its source code; and this chapter in Masters of Doom is a good supplement to the other sources about Catacomb's design and historical significance.  I tried checking through archive.org and Google Books, but I couldn't find any archived reviews, which was very disappointing.  However, given that these sources have described it in terms of id's history, I think there's still a pretty decent argument to be made that it still satisfies the GNG.  I suppose we could maybe merge it to an article on the game series, but I  don't think it should be deleted. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
 * , I mentioned in the nom that Catacomb 3-D would be a satisfactory target as the early history of that release. Seeing as the sources do not go into great enough depth on the original to warrant a full article (there's much more on 3-D) and that we do not have any reviews for the original on file, would 3-D not be a better fit for the content? czar  13:25, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this could survive as an independent article, but if we did merge this somewhere, I guess it's not all that important where it goes. My thinking was that the design and legacy of this game is probably off-topic for the article on Catacomb 3-D. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Based on the sourcing, we could alternatively wrap into an article on the series. Do you have anything on Catacomb II, ? czar  20:06, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the above sources describe Catacomb II, but it's difficult to find in-depth coverage. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - While NonjaRobotPirate's sourcing is a bit light, his sources provide the type of insight to lead me to believe that, if these sources aren't enough, there are enough off-line to warrant keeping. Considering this came out pre-mid-1990's, where virtually all sources are locked away in hard copy magazines, I find this scenario likely. Sergecross73   msg me  16:58, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources provided by NinjaRobotPirate make a good case against straight deletion. Merge should be used if anything. I also agree with Sergecross73 that there is likely to be offline info available on this game (either contemporary or in a Retro Gamer kind of magazine). I'll see if I can find anything tonight before I finalize my !vote. -Thibbs (talk) 17:08, 14 July 2016 (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.