This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Rossami (talk) 06:14, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Non-notable card game invented recently. Subject of a promotional campaign by its creator, User:Mike Church, who is also User:Ludocrat, User:EventHorizon, User:160, and others. The article (at the more appropriate title Ambition (card game) has been previously deleted. Previous deletion debates for that article are at Talk:Ambition (card game)/Delete, Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Talk:Ambition (card game), and Talk:Ambition (card game)/December talk. If you're really interested, note also User:Isomorphic/Minions of the Church, which lists sockpuppet accounts Mike has used over the past year for promoting his game, attacking those who call him on his nonsense, and muddying the waters. Also note the Philosophy of Self-Promotion segment in this previous version of his user page. The sentence So, yeah, damn right I self-promote, and if I can find clever and intricate ways of doing it, all the better describes his behavior over the past year nicely.

Basically this should be deleted because it is non-notable and because Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion, and there has been a determined effort made here to use it as such.Isomorphic 06:45, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I'm all in favor of keeping board games published by a known publisher (qv band guidelines). This is so not it. Delete. Radiant_* 14:55, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, WP is not for self-promotion. I know several hundred games more notable and more influential than this one. Barno 15:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

*Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted content. I'll do this soon unless there are well-informed comments here convincing me otherwise. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• I wasn't willing to speedy-delete or request such, as the current content is fairly different from the old article. I do think that the history is relevant as context. Isomorphic 20:43, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Ok, just-plain Delete. Non-notable; advertising and self-promotion; and borderline speedy because very similar content was previously and properly voted for deletion. I don't want to dredge through all the old discussions—which Mike at one point attempted to delete—but I vaguely thought he had promised not to re-create this content and had vigorously attacked any suggestions that he might do so in future. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Sigh. I saw this as it was being created; Ludocrat blanked a related redirect, and so I brought it over to WP:RFD since I hate seeing 0-byte articles. Ludocrat at this point swore up and down that he wasn't Mike Church, and then turned the former redirect into a disambig page with a short, unlinked mention of this game. It's cases like this that make me look at WP:AGF and cry. Extreme delete. —Korath (Talk) 22:04, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Recreation of previously VfD'd article. RickK 23:12, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. My reasoning is explained here and I will not give it again in great detail; you can read it at that page. This accusation that I am Mike Church, Ludocrat, etc. is just idiotic axe-grinding by users, a part of a larger politically-motivated effort by "anonymous" Internet users, several of whom who have been offline identified and some have even been connected to neo-Nazi groups. I have researched this thoroughly and verified the facts. They seek to launch a personal attack on Mr. Church based on an unfounded fear that he wrote Ambition to become politically influential; there is no indication that he has or ever had this ambition, and the concept seems ludicrous; how would a card game lend a person political clout? Mike Church would have to be a seriously deluded individual to make such a misplaced effort, but it seems more likely that his attackers merely wish to paint him with these sinister motives. The politically-motivated attack surrounding Ambition, however, will not cease and is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. This represents cause to delete Ambition (cards). EventHorizon talk 06:12, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. The claims about the "non-notability" of the game should be ignored: an article on it (written by Mike Church) was published in the March, 2005 issue of The Games Journal [1], and Ambition has been a matter of discussion on both Finnish and Japanese blogs. [2] Finally, there's an entry on it at the BoardGameGeek. [3]. I don't think this is enough to make the article worth the liability of potentially ugly political warfare, but all the claims to the game's notability are verified. So while I support deleting the article on practical grounds, the game itself is definitely notable and growing. EventHorizon talk 06:25, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • Right. Because we all know that neo-Nazis are really interested in making sure that non-notable card games don't get publicized. RickK 06:28, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
      • It's not all the people voting to delete the article(s) who have been connected to these groups, but many of the people making the "sock puppet" accusations. I should have made that more clear: not everyone voting to delete the article is a participant in the politically-motivated personal attack on this individual. EventHorizon talk 06:34, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
        • There is only one allegation of sockpuppetry in this thread, and lots of delete votes without personal attacks. That would suggest that it is not a personal attack, but that people simply consider the game not encyclopedic. There are lots'n'lots of relatively unknown game authors, and very few are on par with Cwali or Cheapass Games. Radiant_* 09:08, Mar 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain, but the article itself is pretty harmless. I've never heard of Ambition, but I've gone to EventHorizon's links and a game of similar notability would probably be kept. I don't know the personal history here, though. Avigna Pines 21:04, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:04, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yet still again as vanity/original research. Mike, give up! Denni☯ 01:41, 2005 Mar 24 (UTC)
• Delete. Never question the judgment of Isomorphic. Gorgonis 02:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • Thank you Korath, but it was already obvious that he was an Isomorphic sockpuppet.
      • As if I really need sockpuppets when I have so many neo-Nazis on my payroll. Isomorphic 21:40, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Another suggestion: Let's ban all mention of Ambition from Wikipedia for all eternity; delete the article and no user may write on the topic at all. Let's make it the first topic to be banned from Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. Next, let's make a rule that no user can play Ambition and contribute to Wikipedia at the same time. Either you are with us, or you are with the Wiki-terrorists (Ambition players). Finally, let's discourage young children from playing Ambition because it's the next tobacco, because it encourages truancy, liberal politics, and sodomy! Let's get Bush to declare war on Ambition. GrEaT IdEaS!!!!1111 Roni C Mani 02:56, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • User's first edit. —Korath (Talk) 03:00, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Sounds good to me. Delete (...and ban people who recreate it (mostly kidding)). -- Cyrius|✎ 07:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Fully concur with Roni C Mani, with the proviso that the policy can always be changed should Ambition a) become notable and b) be demonstrated not to be injurious to the morals of minors. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:56, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable, sockpuppet supported. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:54, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Déjá Vu. C'est vrai!-JCarriker 10:49, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete again. -Sean Curtin 01:56, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ✏ OvenFresh² 19:55, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-famous but notable niche game. 68.115.113.171 03:14, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Worse entries have been let in. "Non-notable" is the most subjective and overused reason for delete. I propose that anybody who uses 'non-notable' as a reason must pair it with verification. This entry passes the verification test in my opinion. Sniffandgrowl 03:59, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User was created today; he has only four edits not to vfds, two of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 04:31, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.