Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fox and geese

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: 16k, 1d, 1m, 1 nonsense discounted. -Splash 00:47, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fox and geese

Article about a non-notable variant of Solitaire (the non-american usage of the term). Appears to be part of the Zillions of Games advertising spam. The creator claims not to be Karl Scherer, though the editing style is similar for this, and other, article(s).

This is not a Solitaire variant, the game is played since at least middle ages, see here for more info The Online Guide to Traditional Games. It was not me who initially created this article, however I significantly expanded it. I added a link to Zillions of Games and made a screenshot from Zillions. I don't see how this editing style is similar to those of Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Solitaire

"Fox and Geese" which claims to be an entirely different game totally unconnected to solitaire

It uses a half-empty solitaire board with pegs, thus a solitaire variant. The creator of the page added minimal content, and appears to be from an IP that looks like one of the open proxys that Wikipedia had some trouble with a while ago, so you are effectively the creator, even if you are not the editor from the IPs. You yourself claim This article was written by me [i.e. Andreas Kaufmann], not Karl Scherer in the article's edit history. Karl Scherer's trademark editing style is to create an article on a puzzle, or "type of puzzle" (as per-Karl-Scherer), and add "links to zillions of games". This is remarkably similar to your edits here. Your edits elsewhere also bear a similarity. While you may be innocent of sockpuppetry, you may also not be - a developer should be able to check it out to confirm either way, but they don't seem to keen on doing this lately. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:21 (UTC)

Yes, you are right the game uses the same board and the same pieces as Solitaire. Still the play is quite different, so that I wouldn't call the game a "Solitaire" variant. Yes, 90% of article is written by me, so I could call myself the author of it. Certainly, it is impossible for me to prove that me is me (I am using my real name here in Wikipedia) and that I am not a Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 22:32 (UTC)

This nomination has either been done in bad faith or in blatant ignorance. The nominator could at least have bothered to do some googling before making himself look bad.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)

You are strongly reminded that personal attacks are forbidden in wikipedia - Wikipedia:No personal attacks. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:23 (UTC)

I am so sorry if you're offended, but you could have taken half a minute to google the game, couldn't you? Why didn't you do that instead of bothering people with this completely unnecessary vote? So far you have not provided a single valid reason, and I strongly doubt your motives.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:21 (UTC)

Google is not a reliable indicator of noteworthyness. E.g. kemwer has only 332 hits, most of which are Wikipedia mirrors, but it is noteworthy, because it is an ancient egyptian god. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:27 (UTC)

That is why people who google usually read some articles, don't they?--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:30 (UTC)

You are again reminded not to make personal attacks. I did read the article and found it to be nothing more than a variant of solitaire, and as such, unworthy of an independant article. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

FYI, it is the other way round.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

FYI, that depends on how you define variant. Most people consider Real Tennis to be a variant of Tennis, rather than Tennis being a variant of Real Tennis, whether Real Tennis came first or not. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:53 (UTC)

You've got a valid point there. But, personally, I have played both games since I was a kid, and until this debate came up, I never saw any connection, but where I live we play the game with holes and pegs.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)

• Delete. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 15:04 (UTC)
• Keep. The game is notable. I played this game when I was a child. The game is quite popular and you can probably buy the set to play this game in a supermarket over the corner. Andreas Kaufmann 3 July 2005 21:36 (UTC)

Of course you can. Its a standard solitaire set with half the pegs missing. ~~~~

• Comment I find this game to be documented in a book on Medieval games. RJFJR July 4, 2005 01:23 (UTC)
• What is the name of the mediaeval book? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:24 (UTC)
• As I understand it, this is like the perfectly good articles you're nominating for deletion merely because they were written by KarlScherer, with the difference that it's not even by KarlScherer (except inasmuch as you're accusing the author of being a sockpuppet: evidence?). I have seen this game in books, but I wouldn't have judged it notable: however I'm happy to believe Andreas Kaufmann claiming that it is so weak keep. Feel free to delete the Zillions link though, it's borderline spam. —Blotwell 4 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)
• Keep - notable - along with Nine Men's Morris, Checkers and Chinese Checkers. Agree that spam link should be gone. --WCFrancis 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
• Merge with Solitaire. I have this book at home with literally dozens of variant games that can be played on a checkerboard or solitaire board. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 09:14 (UTC)
• Question is, are the rules, playing pieces or the board most significant? If the board means the most, Checkers could be merged with Chess, because they use the same board. If the playing pieces matter, Checkers could be merged into Nine Men's Morris. If the differences in rules do not matter, all of them could be merged into board game. Not to mention the fact that you can play Fox and Geese with the solitaire board, but you need another person to play with you, As for me, Keep - Skysmith 4 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
• Keep - it's a well-known game. The Zillions link can be removed. --Zundark 4 July 2005 16:01 (UTC)
• keep. This game is for tow players and the soltaire is played only by one. I came here while planning an article to this game in the german Wiki to see what you wrote about. Now I waite, till you finished the discussion. Greetings--Nfu-peng 4 July 2005 16:57 (UTC)
• Keep. Definitely not Zillionscruft. -Sean Curtin July 4, 2005 17:44 (UTC)
• Keep well known game.  Grue  5 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
• Keep well-known game, though the See Also link to Zillions could go. OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 6, 2005 08:51 (UTC)
• KEEP. I can't believe what I am reading. This is a CLASSIC European game which has great potential for expansion, such as the Swedish variety.--Wiglaf 6 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)

Isn't already time to close this vote? Majority is voted to keep the article, link to Zillions is already removed. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 09:19 (UTC)

No, the standard procedure is at least 5 days, and usually 7. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:20 (UTC)

• Keep. The game (or variants thereof) have been around for centuries. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 18:46 (UTC)
• Teh LolZ. I like wiki fish the wikibfish is good trong because youyr wiki kung fu fish is strong --hdttdtdjtdjt

(unsigned vote by User:64.12.116.196) ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:48 (UTC)

• Keep. This game is very different from solitaire, which is played with only one player. It is much closer to tafl with the particularity of unbalanced forces between the two players and different goals to win the game. --Philipum 7 July 2005 08:45 (UTC)
• Keep. . It deserves a place in Wiki. Moriori July 7, 2005 08:57 (UTC)
• Keep... and I despair at -Ril-'s attempt to rid Wikipedia of anything remotely Zillions related. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 20:11 (UTC)
• Keep The stated reasons for deletion are mistaken. Game is not variant of Solitaire and existed well before a paticular implementation. Wendell 9 July 2005 04:31 (UTC)
• Keep. No reason for deletion, besides an apparently baseless and uncalled for accusation of sockpuppetry. Agree with Wiglaf's points. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:57, 2005 July 10 (UTC)