Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Government Simulation

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Quit with the bad-faith nominations. Next time you decide to do so, please put it on a separate AfD page. But gracefool: there is no policy prohibiting renominations in any timespan, it's just frowned upon. -Splash^talk 00:16, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] American Government Simulation

This site is already covered in some detail at Government Simulator. It is not notable enough for its own page as it certainly has less than 500 players. This borders on advertising and vanity. There is no purpose to this page other than advertising since they currently maintain their own Wiki for recording their in-game events. NavalWar1800 17:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment There is no article at Government Simulator. If you move to delete a page, perhaps it might be a good idea to check if your evidence actually exists? 70.88.193.81 16:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment This is a bad faith VfD. User NavalWar1800 has contributed a large section about a different simulation, USGS, in the Government Simulation article. link to NavalWar1800's revision. NavalWar1800 also disobeyed the page's instructions to keep the links alphabetized and moved the USGS external link to the top of the list link. The last VfD motion was made by USGS members who (wrongly) believed AGS members were trying to delete their page in Wikipedia. Additionally, more than half of NavalWar1800's contributions to Wikipedia have been directed toward deleting this entry. NavalWar1800's decision to add nearly a page of USGS information to the Government Simulation entry, coupled with his move to delete this page immediately after another USGS-sponsored VfD failed, calls his credibility into question. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Bcarlson33 17:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep this has recenlty been through deletion process ending on 11th September. (The result was no consensus) Alf ^melmac 20:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Alf. Kappa 00:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Alf. Stop beating a dead horse already. Bcarlson33 00:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment That some other agency is keeping track of it with a Wiki or any other means shouldn't have any bearing on whether Wikipedia has an article or not. On second thought, as it might add to the verifyability of the info, it could actually subtract form the arguments in favor of article deletion, if verifiability had been under question, which in this case it hadn't. Borderline article in my opinion, and I don't feel strongly enough on this one to take the time to decide which side of the borderline I'd rather be on. Caerwine 04:05, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete There is simply no reason to maintain this page. It is pure advertising. It is not notable in any way and it is covered (and has a paragraph's worth of writing) on the Government Simulator page. Absolutely no reason to keep unless we intend to start allowing advertising for every internet game that pops up. I might also add that their having a Wiki does not add to its legitimacy. They track their in-game events so they can remember who their President etc. was. It is irrelevant to the purpose of an encyclopedia that tracks factual events in the real world. NavalWar1800 03:34, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: Certainly a previous AfD whose result was "no consensus" does not constitute a sufficient reason to keep. I was going to vote "delete" because the article doesn't indicate any distinction beyond lots of these other exercises. Some make a voting member of anyone who registers. But a Google search gives lots of hits (9950 using the three words in quotes, which are pretty generic even in that sequence). Many high hits are WP (we're #2) or mirrors. Some high hits are other games or face-to-face simulations, and I'm not sure how much this one stands out from its field. I noticed that the only "innovations" cited in the article are different features than this simulation's predecessor. Nothing indicates it meets WP:I if there are just a few surveys of what's out there in this category without any real indication of pioneering or changing its field or garnering attention of many thousands of people. Weak delete per NavalWar1800 unless someone can demonstrate more significance. Barno 06:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, this VfD was created in violation of policy (already VfD 6 days before) ··gracefool |☺ 17:37, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.