246:. This article has no references and much of it looks like original research/personal opinion. It is also written like an advertisement or perhaps a love letter to the software in question asserting that it is a "shining example" a "household name" and "higher quality than the original game company" all of which are unsupported statements of personal opinion. It also contains obvious speculation that it has "probably been used for 85%+ of all maps released for HL1" again with no sources cited. It further fails to establish notability. Just because a particular game is notable, doesn't automatically mean that a given after-market editing hack program is itself notable. ZHLT gets a number of ghits but they all seem to be either directly related to the software (primary sources,) or niche sites; I found no significant, reliable, independent, secondary source coverage as per
464:" (emphasis mine). This is not a controversial article where strict sourcing is required! It is an informative article detailing a technical tool, the details of which are sourced in the websites linked. No one is likely to "challenge" the fact that ZHLT implemented the null texture, or that there is an SDK for Unix. The one potentially "controversial" piece of information (after my recent edits today) is in the 2nd paragraph which talks about how widespread the tool is. No one who has ever mapped for HL or GoldSrc would challenge this statement, and a few minutes of googling around will confirm its validity. However, if those here believe that this statement is controversial, the offending paragraph can be easily removed without deleting the whole article!
598:. I am still an admin and/or editor at several big mapping sites. If I wrote a solid article and published it there, would that qualify as a legitimate source, or would that be considered a conflict of interest? I could also probably convince another editor to write such an article if writing it myself would pose a problem. These are neutral sites that got huge readership from ~1999-2004, but are waning now. I would take care not to present false information (as always). What do you think? Thanks.
501:
somewhat unique and interesting development history which I would like to expand upon if the article is kept. This is probably the most difficult thing to convince non-modders/mappers of - we have hundreds of tools and programs, and without doing a bit of mapping it would would be hard to understand why a particular compile tool is important while a certain model viewer program is not, etc. To a non-mapper they all look the same, and this creates a form of
409:
ZHLT is highly notable, as you will find if you talk to anyone in the game modding community. I believe this is an example of people who don't know anything about a subject unintentionally displaying their systematic bias. I gave a series of arguments on the talk page as to why ZHLT is notable, which
359:
After some searching, I don't think it will be possible to find this or any other substantial reference in a reasonable amount of time. I have found a lot of mentions on a variety of mapping and gaming news sites, but they tend to be short blurbs and not substantial coverage. Most are along the lines
475:
is to stop people from adding things that are blatantly false, and serve as an arbiter where facts are disputed. It was not intended to weed out simple obvious facts, otherwise every article in the whole of WP would need a citation after every sentence, and the project would grind to a halt. In this
415:
OlenWhitaker takes issue with the style of the article and lack of sources. That is a problem, but should be dealt with by improving the article instead of deleting it. In any case, if the article is deleted, it should be done so in such a way that it can be easily re-created and written in the
500:
Notability - I think that a lot of people here have the wrong impression about this. ZHLT is not "yet another" random program used by a few hackers to make minor edits to some computer game. It is a tool of major importance to the mapping community, as I explain on the talk page, and it has a
360:
of "hey mappers, ZHLT version X has been released and implements new features YZW. Check it out at the official website (link)". Mappers are apparently not the target audience of magazines. I will be on the lookout for substantial coverage - just don't get your hopes up. )-:
410:
should be read before rejecting this subject as non-notable. The nominator mentioned that I did not bring WP policy into my points, and yeah that is true. Please give me a bit more time to research WP policy more carefully so that I may cite it (if appropriate).
389:
Yeah wow when I wrote those arguments on the talk page, it was to explain notability. Although the statements are true, I didn't expect what I wrote to be incorporated into the article itself. If they are in the article they will need to be sourced.
441:
NPOV - I have edited the article to remove a lot of the POV people here were objecting to. This is an ongoing process and further improvements are welcome, of course. Furthermore, the article should not be deleted on this basis alone, as
292:
and not notable to another. For a niche item like this software, I realize that it may be of interest to a fair number of people, but that that fact may be difficult to prove. I would, therefore, change my vote to keep if just
496:
states that reliable sources only need to be used for points that are likely to be challenged. As mentioned above, I think the bulk of the information in this article is very unlikely to be challenged after the edits I recently
435:
I now have read the policies and guidelines referenced, and believe I can properly address the points raised with respect to WP policy. (note: I am not a developer of ZHLT, just a former mapper that used
509:, this tool is the second most important program in mapping for Half-Life/Counterstrike/GoldSrc/etc, and has had considerable influence on the entire mod scene. I would also point out that, according to
471:
sources, this is true. It would also be very hard to track down the magazine articles and so forth that have mentioned ZHLT. However, what I gather from reading these policies is that the spirit of
268:
The new version of the article is a considerable improvement in terms of style. The subjective info has been removed and the article sticks to facts which is much better, but there are still no
284:
and it is true that the spirit of the policy, not its letter, is of paramount importance. The question of "notable to who?" must be considered carefully in such a case since
133:, but they make no reference to policy or guideline and I see no independent coverage of this software in any reliable sources. The article was created by a ZHLT developer.
122:
448:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion... A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem.".
199:
following changes bellow, I'd be happy to change to keep if a source could be found. I did try some google searches but I only found a good number of blog posts. --
515:
If an article currently does not cite reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, that does not necessarily mean the topic is not notable.
331:
That seems eminently fair to me, Olen, and I will happily withdraw the nomination if at least one source evincing substantial coverage is found.
581:. No sources, no assertion of notability. Even if everything in the article could be sourced, it still wouldn't be an encyclopedic subject.
522:
I hope that some of you will at least reconsider your positions after reading this information and looking at the modified article. Thanks.
599:
523:
417:
391:
361:
346:
17:
345:
I have seen them discussed in a gaming magazine several years ago. I will try to find coverage, although it might take some time.
517:" This is one of those edge cases where a subject is notable, but not of the type that tends to get covered in news stories, etc.
625:
36:
467:
Reliable
Sources - Going by the "letter of the law", this is a tough point to refute. The article is not sourced by
233:
624:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
89:
84:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
603:
527:
421:
395:
365:
350:
93:
221:
255:
76:
204:
187:
161:
564:
547:
506:
477:
130:
80:
607:
590:
573:
552:
531:
425:
399:
369:
354:
340:
325:
306:
259:
251:
237:
208:
191:
165:
142:
58:
54:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
502:
281:
443:
586:
336:
200:
183:
157:
138:
72:
64:
489:
481:
472:
468:
269:
179:
302:
229:
510:
493:
485:
453:
280:. By a strict interpretation of the policies, this article should be out...however...
277:
273:
247:
513:, a lack of reliable sources does not imply a lack of notability. There they state, "
505:
in articles about technical subjects. All I can say is that I am a mapper, and after
563:
Even after the rewrite, this doesn't seem to really assert any notability criteria.
50:
110:
151:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
582:
332:
134:
541:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
225:
305:, I'd even be happy with an online gaming mag here. Does that seem fair?
462:, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source
218:
Lots of problems. Somewhat of an ad, no links, and not notable.
618:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
297:
article or review about the software (not just mentioning it,
129:
Non-notable software. Some counterarguments were given on the
484:
page advises us to do. In terms of policy, I would note that
178:
Lots of fourm posts, and trivial sources, but nothing meets
301:
it) were added. I'm not asking for the front page of the
117:
106:
102:
98:
546:
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -
272:compliant sources (or indeed any at all) to either
156:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
628:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
460:challenged or likely to be challenged
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
282:Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy
276:the article's contents or establish
24:
1:
476:case, I ask that we use some
328:13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
645:
608:00:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
591:20:19, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
574:19:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
553:19:33, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
532:11:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
426:02:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
400:02:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
370:00:13, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
355:21:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
341:19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
326:13:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
209:00:24, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
59:17:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
260:22:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
238:21:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
192:21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
166:21:21, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
143:16:54, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
621:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
488:is a policy, whereas
492:is a guideline, and
216:Pretty strong delete
507:Valve Hammer Editor
416:appropriate style.
55:wasn't he just...?
571:
555:
240:
224:comment added by
168:
636:
623:
569:
567:
566:Ten Pound Hammer
550:
545:
543:
452:Verifiability -
324:
320:
311:
219:
155:
153:
120:
114:
96:
44:The result was
34:
644:
643:
639:
638:
637:
635:
634:
633:
632:
626:deletion review
619:
565:
548:
539:
322:
318:
316:
307:
149:
116:
87:
71:
68:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
642:
640:
631:
630:
613:
611:
610:
593:
576:
570:and his otters
557:
556:
544:
536:
535:
534:
519:
518:
498:
465:
450:
438:
437:
429:
428:
412:
411:
404:
403:
402:
381:
380:
379:
378:
377:
376:
375:
374:
373:
372:
314:
303:New York Times
288:is notable to
263:
262:
241:
213:
212:
211:
170:
169:
154:
146:
127:
126:
67:
62:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
641:
629:
627:
622:
616:
615:
614:
609:
605:
601:
600:98.203.237.75
597:
594:
592:
588:
584:
580:
577:
575:
568:
562:
559:
558:
554:
551:
542:
538:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:98.203.237.75
521:
520:
516:
512:
508:
504:
499:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:here, as the
479:
474:
470:
466:
463:
461:
456:states that "
455:
451:
449:
445:
440:
439:
434:
431:
430:
427:
423:
419:
418:98.203.237.75
414:
413:
408:
405:
401:
397:
393:
392:98.203.237.75
388:
385:
384:
383:
382:
371:
367:
363:
362:98.203.237.75
358:
357:
356:
352:
348:
347:98.203.237.75
344:
343:
342:
338:
334:
330:
329:
327:
312:
310:
304:
300:
296:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
267:
266:
265:
264:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
239:
235:
231:
227:
223:
217:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
195:
194:
193:
189:
185:
181:
177:
176:
172:
171:
167:
163:
159:
152:
148:
147:
145:
144:
140:
136:
132:
124:
119:
112:
108:
104:
100:
95:
91:
86:
82:
78:
74:
70:
69:
66:
63:
61:
60:
57:
56:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
620:
617:
612:
595:
578:
560:
540:
514:
478:common sense
459:
457:
447:
432:
406:
386:
309:OlenWhitaker
308:
298:
294:
289:
285:
252:OlenWhitaker
243:
215:
196:
174:
173:
150:
128:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
407:Strong Keep
220:—Preceding
197:weak delete
286:everything
278:notability
201:Salix alba
184:Salix alba
158:Salix alba
458:Material
446:states, "
131:talk page
596:Question
549:Tiptoety
234:contribs
222:unsigned
123:View log
433:Comment
387:Comment
290:someone
90:protect
85:history
51:seresin
579:Delete
561:Delete
444:WP:DEL
313:• or
274:verify
244:Delete
175:delete
118:delete
94:delete
46:delete
583:Quale
497:made.
490:WP:RS
482:WP:RS
473:WP:RS
469:WP:RS
333:Jfire
315:don't
299:about
270:WP:RS
180:WP:RS
135:Jfire
121:) – (
111:views
103:watch
99:links
16:<
604:talk
587:talk
528:talk
511:WP:N
503:bias
494:WP:V
486:WP:V
454:WP:V
422:talk
396:talk
366:talk
351:talk
337:talk
317:• ♣
256:talk
248:WP:N
230:talk
226:Mm40
205:talk
188:talk
182:. --
162:talk
139:talk
107:logs
81:talk
77:edit
73:ZHLT
65:ZHLT
572:•
436:it)
295:one
606:)
589:)
530:)
424:)
398:)
368:)
353:)
339:)
321:♠
258:)
250:.
236:)
232:•
207:)
190:)
164:)
141:)
109:|
105:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
83:|
79:|
53:|
48:.
602:(
585:(
526:(
420:(
394:(
364:(
349:(
335:(
323:♦
319:♥
254:(
228:(
203:(
186:(
160:(
137:(
125:)
115:(
113:)
75:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.