Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EQuake


 * 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 - Liberatore(T) 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

EQuake
This source port as of version 1.0 gives out an illegal copy of pak1.pak, a file that's required to run Quake. Basically the creator's doing illegal activity, and this should not have a Wiki article. TonicBH 13:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wikipedia is not censored, within reason articles about illegal activities or things are fine. But how notable is this? For looking at Google it is not clear, the homepage gets first hit but there are hits for at a quick count 4-5 other software/projects with the same name.-- blue  520  14:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RGTraynor, no assertion of notability. -- blue 520  15:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - Likewise, what makes this "illegal?" Is the creator selling it?  Is this modification s/he pushing malicious?  Game Manufacture Not Wanting Their Codes Cracked /= Violation of Law.  In any event, no assertion of notability.  RGTraynor 15:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The GPL Quake source release only includes the engine code, not the game data, which still remains proprietary to iD Software. If a player wishes to run original Quake, or mods that depend on original Quake data (which would be the majority), they need to install the files from the original CD first. This would be different if they'd be playing a mod that would be built ground up using only free content (such as Nexuiz). --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 17:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's not a mod, it's a pack that uses portions of Quake that are illegal for distribution. As I said, he's basically distributing warez. -TonicBH 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - We don't need articles for every repackaging of something. This, according to the article, is merely a repackaging of existing fork. May warrant a very very very minor mention in FuhQuake. And no, WaR3z1ng something is nasty, but not a reason to delete an article in itself. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 16:53, 29 April 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.