Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambition again
This article was started by Mike Church about his game. After a lot of bitter fighting, the page was reduced to just verifiable information, and made NPOV. Mike eventually left in disgust, and nominated the page for deletion. It survived. That discussion, plus an even earlier deletion debate, are archived here. More backstory can be found on Talk:Ambition (card game). Apparently Mike still wants the article deleted.
Isomorphic 04:15, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:50, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I didn't vote on the last one because I didn't feel strongly either way. —Stormie 06:57, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Del. Premature at best. --Jerzy(t) 07:25, 2004 Jul 28 (UTC)
- Delete. BCorr|Брайен 15:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. This is not an article problem. I do not believe it is wise to delete an article that would otherwise be kept merely because someone is under politically-motivated attack. While there are valid questions regarding the relevance of the article, it clearly exceeds the de facto inclusion guidelines by a wide margin. UninvitedCompany 16:18, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Vfd is not a place to solve edit wars. --Starx 17:08, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Geogre 20:39, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Mike Church's ego has been stroked enough. RickK 21:24, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. It's what I've wanted for a while. See more. Mike Church 23:30, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Not only was this game deemed as uninteresting by reviewers who attempted it, it was also clearly notable only among the friends and acquaintances of the article's author. Delete again. Denni☯ 01:44, 2004 Jul 29 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Said "reviewers" were merely the friends and acquaintances of one Wikipedia poster. That's not enough to judge a game as uninteresting-- the rules may have been poorly or hastily taught, the individuals playing the game may have not had much interest in card games at all, etc. All he said is that his friends didn't like it, not "uninteresting", and when I asked him to back it up with specific criticisms, he declined. Just setting the record straight for ya... Mike Church 13:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I note you have failed to address the second (and more important) point of my criticism. Delete as novelty. Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
- "Failed to address" in that I had about 5 minutes of time to spare that day. It's received several votes at Aaron D. Fuegi's top 100 games list (average rating 8.00/10, which is quite solid). Yes, one of the votes was mine, and a couple were my friends, but not all. I've also met people who've played the game not of my acquaintance-- for example, an incoming freshman at Carleton. Mike Church 14:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- I note you have failed to address the second (and more important) point of my criticism. Delete as novelty. Denni☯ 02:21, 2004 Jul 30 (UTC)
- You're wrong. Said "reviewers" were merely the friends and acquaintances of one Wikipedia poster. That's not enough to judge a game as uninteresting-- the rules may have been poorly or hastily taught, the individuals playing the game may have not had much interest in card games at all, etc. All he said is that his friends didn't like it, not "uninteresting", and when I asked him to back it up with specific criticisms, he declined. Just setting the record straight for ya... Mike Church 13:45, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I would want more independent sources before this meets my threshold for inclusion. --Michael Snow 17:53, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete.Elf-friend 16:12, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Andrewa 12:34, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
- Delete with haste. Great game, and notable enough for inclusion, but Mike Church should not be an author of a page on his own accomplishment-- it's bad form and saps the page of any credibility. Let an Ambition page be written in six months or so, preferably by someone with at least 200 edits and no evident Churchian interests. (Nah, I'm not MC... I am choosing to remain anon. though.) 64.12.116.212 00:40, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)