Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zillions of Games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.  Grue  21:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Zillions of Games (the article)

Article is an advert. Zillions of Games has only 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits.

N.b. there has been a lot of Zillions-based spam (e.g. over 100 articles created) on wikipedia for the last 2 years, that was only recently discovered and VfD'd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Zillions games. Consequently, there was time for there to be many different IPs used to create the articles, and the creator's edit pattern seems to be to use an IP/user-name for a while, then bin it and use another, creating a potential army of dorment sockpuppets.

As a result, some editors with over 200 edits, who have been here for more than just a few days, are potentially sock puppets of the Zillions-article creator. This complicates determining whose votes are permissible immensely, and a developer would probably need to check out each voter when the voting is closed. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)

Yes, it's a good idea to check out everyone who votes here. -Ril- has been pointing out users with few prior edits. But this is relevant only for users without verifiable identities. When a voter is using his real name and has an established presence on the web beyond Wikipedia, we can be fairly certain that he is not a sockpuppet, and when he refers back to his Wikipedia profile from his homepage, as I have done, and that homepage is in a domain registered under his name, as mine is, we can be certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is for real and no sockpuppet. The number of prior edits is relevant mainly for those without verifiable identities, such as those who use pseudonyms, as -Ril- does, or have not established any presence on the web beyond the Wikipedia. In this case, more edits raises the probability that a user is not a sockpuppet, though it never makes it a certainty. The nature of the prior edits and how recently the account has been created are also factors to consider. For example, a couple of the accounts that have voted for delete were opened last week, and one has been involved mainly in VfDs. --Fergus July 8, 2005 18:27 (UTC)

Now, I could claim on my talk page that I was Douglas Adams. And, apart from the fact he is dead, there is no proof that I am not. Nethertheless it would be a lie. There is no reason to take who people claim they are to be true, as it is easily a lie, and particularly likely for Sockpuppets to do, to try to establish a different identity.
I can register any number of homepages and claim them to be different people, then use them for sockpuppetry. Their existance is no evidence at all. The only convincing evidence would be the individuals physically in front of me stating what their usernames are.
And even in this case, their votes would not reflect the opinion of the Wikipedia community at large, but of a small, highly biased, clique, only recently arrived within it, which is reason enough to discount it.
It is not more edits that establishes individuality, but a distinct personality difference between editors and their editing styles and interests. More edits makes a comparison possible, and it harder to fake such differences. Under 200 edits is too easy to fake. I myself was accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Ril, but my editing style and other behaviour, together with my over 3000 edits at the time, strongly indicated that this was not the case to a member of the arbitration committee.
Nethertheless, it is also a major sockpuppet behaviour to edit in a noticably distinct style. This is also detectable; by the fact it is much more different to each other than would be statistically likely for two seperate people - i.e. it is obviously someone trying to make themselves appear as different as possible. Indeed some occasionally make votes opposing themselves elsewhere, using paper thin arguments for the case that their true opinion contests.
Between these two factors, I see nothing to indicate that those editors below of few edits are distinct people. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:57 (UTC)

You might create any number of homepages, but are you wealthy enough to register any number of domains? Of course not. No one is. It costs money to register a domain, and that is why I brought up the point of having a homepage in a domain registered to oneself. My homepage is in a domain registered to myself, which you can verify with a whois search. If you compare it with the whois search for wikipedia.com, you will even discover that mine is older. That should erase any doubt that I registered the domain only to create a sockpuppet here. But even without having your own domain, a homepage that is part of an established web presence can go a long way toward establishing the credibility of a user. For example, Andreas Kaufmann has a geocities homepage, but he has included a picture of himself, has programmed games and a winboard adapter for Zillions, and has been playing games against various people, including myself, on various websites. Moreover, his activity here has been consistent with what I know of him beyond Wikipedia. So I'm certain beyond any reasonable doubt that he is who he says he is. Perhaps there are others here I would come to the same conclusion about if I did the research, though, as yet, I have not. In short, the extremity of your skepticism toward people with few edits is unjustified. --Fergus July 9, 2005 00:13 (UTC)

  • Delete. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 14:58 (UTC)
  • Delete, not notable. Dcarrano July 3, 2005 17:37 (UTC)
  • Do we use the same search engine? Searching for ""zillions of games" -wikipedia -encyclopedia" gives me 63,900 hits [1]. I heard from this game before I read the wikipedia article, and think it is quite notable, so keep. The spam by whoever is quite sad, tho. --Conti|✉ July 3, 2005 19:19 (UTC)
  • Keep: This issue was discussed over 2 years ago on the article's talk page. The number 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits comes from a 2 year old comment on the articles talk page. See the 08:40, 20 April 2003 article talk page; it reports "8,740 hits on google - though only 602 of those are non-duplicates". Currently there are ~67,000 Google references, but I do not know how many are non-mirrors. Wendell 3 July 2005 19:26 (UTC)
    • Karl Scherer's spamming of Wikipedia on the other (now deleted) articles started some 2 years ago, that probably has quite a lot to do with the increase in google hits. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
    • This page seems to have taken a negative tone, so let me be clear. I think the page is a Keep on its own merits, regardless of Google counts or SockPuppets issues. Although I have never used it, I enjoy games and board games, and wish I was a better programmer. This tool seems like a good introduction into prototyping algorithms, regardless if it comes with dozens of built in games and hundreds of user created downloadable games. My reference to the 2 year old talk page and its Google counts was meant to highlight that someone had not done recent research, just repeating older discussion. Wendell 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
user has voted previously above. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:43 (UTC)
  • Keep. There may has been Zillions-based spam, but that shouldn't mean that this article is automatically removed. It seems a noteworthy enough computer program, and not particularly advertising. Perhaps some rewriting is due, but otherwise I see no reason to delete the article. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 19:37 (UTC)
    • If it is noteworthy, then why can I find zero negative references to it on google? The internet is a very critical place, so out of the things that arent just an advert, you would expect a sizable number of negative criticisms, but there appear to be none. This implies it is all just advertising, i.e. not noteworthy. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you didn't look hard enough. See [2] for a negative review and [3] for some negative comments about the ZRF scripting language used by Zillions. PittBill 3 July 2005 23:08 (UTC)
        • Heck, for that matter, look at the user forums on the Zillions of Games site. *wry grin* Those of us who are enthusiasts of the engine routinely run into its limits. Once I'm home, I'll try to dig up some of the webpages from game programmers on limitations they've run into. -Fuzzy 5 July 2005 12:54 (UTC)
Hmm... i take your point. I've just seen all the other things by this guy up for deletion, and I totally appreciate spam and advertising has been a big problem with this. I still do wonder, however, why the program should deserve no representation on here at all. I fully agree removing countless links in other articles, and rewriting this to ensure an NPOV, but I still just feel that it's notable enough to be represented. However annoying the spam has been. Interesting point you make re the google results however, i'll look into them a bit more. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:25 (UTC)
Hmm... well there are some reviews of the software out there so it's not just advertising. Still seems a noteworthy enough program to me. UkPaolo 3 July 2005 22:28 (UTC)
  • Keep. Wikipedia policy must be consistent. I see noone moving to delete the entry for Microsoft. By the way, I am NOT the vandal. --BadSanta
The behavior of one anonymous zealot is regrettable. Nonetheless, as Dr. Karl Scherer once argued at length and in explicit detail, this article is not a damned ad. Zillions Of Games is the only fully-universal, user-friendly program for creating and playing chess variants of any architecture. In other words, the ZOG program is as indispensible to board game inventors as Microsoft Windows is to most IBM-compatible computer owners (and I sure as Hell do not wish to advertise for Microsoft). By the way, my name is Melvin Rippey. It would be nice to get some input from some Wikipedia editors who are not clueless as to what they are talking about yet strangely vocal to the point of trying to get this important page deleted. --BadSanta
User has edits only to Chess variant games, and has not edited for a while (since 13th june) until the VfD on Karl Scherer's articles stopped being edited (2 days ago) ~~~~ 3 July 2005 16:31 (UTC)
I'm not sure that BadSanta's edit history is relevant to this discussion. The fact that a user votes in a VfD discussion that relates to his or her area of interest is hardly suspicious, and the fact that one of this user's absences from Wikipedia coincided with VfD discussions related to another user's contributions is only circumstantial grounds for suspicion. NatusRoma 3 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
The issue is that Karl Scherer's edit pattern (see the IPs) is to use them for a reasonable period, then move on, and occasionally resurrect them. This was over a period of 2 years. This suggests he is capable, and may be likely, to have set up sockpuppets which now appear to be established, though do not make frequent edits, and can then be used to sway a VfD by appearing to be different editors. Consequently, the only way to see if someone may need to be checked out by a developer for sockpuppetry is by flagging up an edit pattern conforming to what would be expected of Karl Scherer. Obviously this could, and is likely to, catch innocent editors, which is extremely unfortunate, and I would have preferred not to need to do this, but developers should soon be able to determine the guilt or innocence of each, when it comes to tally up the vote. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
    • You are not really allowed to vote twice. Would you like me to move your previous comment down here to make it clear you are only voting the once?~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
      • I did not vote twice or attempt to. I don't care where you move my comment or if you move it. --BadSanta
        • Now dealt with. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:06 (UTC)
          • Thank you. --BadSanta
User has only edits to Chess-varient related articles, and Fox and geese which I put up for deletion as something that appears to be written by Karl Scherer, despite being created by Andreas, who claims to be a seperate individual. ~~~~ 3 July 2005 22:02 (UTC)
FYI- Andreas Kaufmann is a seperate individual! Nearly everyone in the chess variant community knows who he is. He made the WinBoard adapter for Zillions Of Games without any financial compensation. Are you going to insult everyone? --BadSanta
So, what you are saying is, Andreas Kaufmann is a significant part of Zillions of Games, just like Karl Scherer, i.e. highly biased, and just as likely as Karl Scherer to have created the article as spam advertising ? ~~~~ 4 July 2005 18:04 (UTC)
No, I am saying the opposite. Andreas Kaufmann is not affiliated with Zillions Development in any way. He made the WinBoard adapter without any financial compensation to benefit the chess variant community, not for a corporation. By the way, Dr. Karl Scherer does not work for Zillions Development, either. He is simply the most prolific board game inventor in the world. --BadSanta
Now, I am very curious why you would title Mr. Scherer as most prolific when it isn't backed up with evidence, given that you have no personal connection to him. ~~~~ 4 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)
The Zillions web site currently lists Dr. Karl Scherer, a published mathematician, as having invented 396 board games- several times more than whoever takes second place (strictly by numerical measure). This is a verifiable fact. You do know what "prolific" means, I presume? --BadSanta
Prolific means prolific not noteworthy. I have written prolific VfDs (I have had over 100 articles deleted via VfD over the last fortnight), but that does not make me noteworthy enough for an article. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
Neither Andreas Kaufmann nor Karl Scherer 'created' the Zillions article. According to the page history, a user named Chuck Smith wrote the first version in 2002.PittBill 4 July 2005 19:03 (UTC)
User has 46 prior edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)
How is my edit history relevant to the statement I made? PittBill 5 July 2005 23:56 (UTC)
A low prior edit count is evidence of potential sockpuppetry. Usually VfD admins err on the side of caution and discount any votes by people with under 200 prior edits, or who have been here less than a month prior to the VfD. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:37 (UTC)
Thanks for that information. Fortunately, I haven't cast a vote. I've only posted comments in an attempt to influence those whose votes will be counted. PittBill 6 July 2005 13:38 (UTC)
Personally I think you should vote anyhow, and that should be counted unless further evidence of sockpuppetry is presented. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 17:08 (UTC)
And I thought -Ril- was talking about User Chuck Smith. FYI, User Chuck Smith has between 250 and 500 edits dating back to 2002. Wendell 6 July 2005 00:12 (UTC)
N.b. 2002 was when Karl Scherer first appeared (as one of the IP addresses) ~~~~ 8 July 2005 20:05 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think zillions of games need any additional advertisement. It is a major addition to the wealth of human civilization and culture. That's what encyclopedias should be all about -- diversity. And those silly allegations about the guy using fake profiles, that sounds like slander motivated by jealousy. If you had an interesting life of your own, you wouldn't be poking your nose into everyone's business.
(unsigned vote by User:70.114.136.31) Who has zero prior edits. probably a SOCKPUPPET. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)
Your argument does rather collapse when you consider that you appear to be a sockpuppet yourself. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:05 (UTC)
  • Strong delete with extreme prejudice. The sockpuppetry alone is enough to reach this conclusion. — Phil Welch 5 July 2005 04:26 (UTC)
I gather that a few conscientious editors have been thru Hell over the sockpuppetry. The temptation to get angry and nuke the problem is to some extent, understandable. However, we have a responsibility as editors to not let the unethical behavior of one individual provoke us into spitefully flushing down the toilet relevant material of interest to many. The bottom line is it is difficult to discuss chess variants without mentioning the Zillions program in the modern era. So, it belongs, notwithstanding. --BadSanta
The issue is, is it noteworthy to more than just people who work for Zillions in some manner, and their sockpuppets, i.e. is it more than just fancruft? Given the state of google on the matter 2 years ago before this spamming started - only 602 non-mirror hits, many being message board edits by karl scherer + company themselves - I would say that it is fancruft, and not noteworthy. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
Chess variants are variants of chess, which require only a board and chess pieces, and someone who knows the rules. I don't see where Zillions is a necessity there. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
No, that is a naive understanding of Chess variants. They may be played on boards of varying sizes, shapes, and geometries, and with pieces not used in Chess. Zillions of Games enables the play of countless Chess variants that cannot be played with the standard equipment of Chess. --Fergus 01:55, July 10, 2005 (UTC)
I am well aware that there are different boards. For example, a 6 sided one for 3 players is the most notable of these. It still isn't mentioned in the article though. I think you mean different geographies. I strongly doubt that zillions could cope with the Minkowski geometry, Riemann geometry, or Kerr geometry, for example. ~~~~ 11:13, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
As a side note, while it is not an indispensable feature, I would state that ZoG's ability to try all possible moves within a vertain depth is certainly useful in finding holes in one's developed game. For instance, in a chess variant I created (name not mentioned here for fear of being accused of advertising), I originally allowed for a destructive effect on surrounding pieces when two pieces of a certain type were adjacent. I ran the game in ZoG. Four moves in, the computer had moved his pieces into mine in such a way as to devestate my ranks with an explosion. I found that it was something that was impossible to properly defend against, providing a definite advantage to anyone playing the first to move. Two years of playing the game with friends (before I tried plugging it into ZoG) hadn't revealed that move sequence. Maybe not a "necessity" but pretty darn useful in chess variant development. -Fuzzy 05:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I personally doubt that any sockpuppets are voting on this page. It rather seems to me that many quite obsessed fans of the game are voting. While I can certainly understand the suspiciousness of the Wikipedia editors, to me the game itself is still notable enough to warrant an article. Just have a look at some of the google results, they are certainly not all spam. [4] [5] [6] --Conti|✉ July 5, 2005 13:07 (UTC)
You are mistaken to the extreme upon one of your key points of argument. The Wikipedia definition of gamecruft refers to fan or fanatical devotion to a single game. Recall that Zillions Of Games is a universal board game program. Just see how radically inconsistent your allegation of fancruft (imprecise word used) is with the broad definition of chess variants. Note that chess variants is a compound noun which carries a very distinct meaning from literally "variants of chess". Chess variants refers universally to a class of board games which include chess and many other chess-related games. I wish the main protagonist on the other side of this argument was minimally coherent on this subject. --BadSanta
"Pink tigers" refers universally to a class of tigers which are pink. That still doesn't make it notable. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Keep. My name is David Bush. I am not, nor ever have been, a sockpuppet. Perhaps my home page (such as it is) would provide sufficient evidence about this. Zillions has great value to me as a tool for analyzing lots of abstract games, not just chess variants. It helps me get a handle on basic tactics, which form the basis for deeper understanding. There are probably hundreds of ZoG script writers who have added to the ever increasing body of work. It costs money to "join the club," but once you have the software, all third-party packages are freely downloadable. I have been a playtester for ZoG, which means I got an upgrade for free. I received no money. I don't know Jack about IT issues, sock puppets and the like. But I am very upset about the flame war that has grown up here. Insults don't help. They really don't. Ignoring the guidelines for posting on Wikipedia doesn't help. It really doesn't. Those who manage this site have a valid concern that future additions to the ZoG page should observe the rules which are clearly listed for anyone who takes the time to read them. Is it worth their time to continually correct violations, just to keep a page which apparently is read by relatively few people? Can we all get along? Everything you might want to tell the world about ZoG can be done within the posting guidelines. If you are not certain your edit is correct, Wikipedia has a "preview" option as well as a "sand box."

--Twixter 5 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)

User has 18 prior edits. ~~~~ 5 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
  • Comment So far, we have 3 votes from editors with under 50 prior edits, one of whom has none prior to voting. Is anyone still uncertain why I raised concerns about sockpuppetry when I started this VfD ? ~~~~ 5 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
You will see how baseless you claims if you check exactly what these users edited. I am actually more concerned about people voting to delete this article only because of your unproven claims without checking the matters by themself. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)
Karl Scherer's edit pattern (including those of the IPs) is to edit a set of general articles, and then centre on Zillions/puzzle-categorisation articles, then fade back to general articles before fading away. It fits two well. The other has not got any prior edits at all, which is generally regarded as an extremely clear indication of sock puppetry. ~~~~
Actually IP's are most easy. Just enter user IP in IP address locator and you will see that the user whom you accuse in Sockpuppetry is from Texas and not from Australia as Karl Scherer. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 21:55 (UTC)
Actually, Wikipedia has in recent times been the victim of attacks via Open Proxies, one of the most used sets is based in Texas, and the most used itself is based in australia, so IP locators are somewhat unreliable in cases of sockpuppetry. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:39 (UTC)
I also don't observe Karl Scherer's edit pattern for two other users you hint to be sockpuppets, actually it is very easy to find their real names from their user pages. Both of them are not Karl Scherers. Andreas Kaufmann 5 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
It isn't very likely that if someone had sockpuppets to use for voting that they would use their real names on their pages, as that would give it away. It would be more likely that they would lie. Indeed, it would be statistically more likely that they would indicate a name on their page than an average user would, since that way, they appear to imply that they are someone else, wheras an average user has no need to. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:44 (UTC)
You need to immediately quit falsely accusing everyone who disagrees with you on this issue of being both a disreputable editor and a sockpuppet. I am for real and as I have long-standing acquaintance or familiarity with some of the people you are accusing, being fellow hobbyists, I have compelling reasons to believe they are real as well. What you are doing is morally wrong and it starkly violates Wikipedia policy. If you persist, we or I can get you banned. Finally, you have wrecked you own credibility to the extreme that I now seriously doubt Dr. Karl Scherer has done everything or anything you have accused him of. --BadSanta
    • Comment -Ril- Can you clarify the editors with under 50 prior edits who voted? I found only 2, and a third person who only made a comment (not a vote). The page is getting busy, and it is sometimes hard to follow the discussion. Wendell 5 July 2005 23:39 (UTC)
  • Keep. My name is Fergus Duniho. I am well known as one of the editors of the Chess Variant Pages [7]. Zillions of Games is not just any commercial product. It is a one-of-its-kind product, an interpreter of a computer programming language for playing countless board games against a personal computer. It deserves as much attention as any other computer programming language. Furthermore, Zillions of Games is so much more significant than the games that come with it. More importantly, it has been used to program countless games that no one has ever been able to play on a computer before, and it has provided game creators with a tool for developing and creating new strategy board games. In fact, its existence has resulted in a boom in the creation and availability of new strategy board games. In the world of strategy board games, and especially in the world of Chess variants, Zillions of Games has been of monumental and far-reaching consequence. Both Andreas Kaufmann and Karl Scherer are well-known to me outside of the Wikipedia. Karl Scherer is a New Zealander who has published numerous Zillions rules files (ZRFs) of several games and puzzles of his own invention, and Andreas Kaufmann is a German developer of ZRFs and a well-known member of the Chess Variant Pages, against whom I have played several games online with my own invention, Game Courier [8], and against whom I am presently playing a game of Grand Chess online. If both men have posted to the Wikipedia only on related subjects, it is only because they share a common hobby. I share the same hobby and have also posted only on Wikipedia pages related to Chess Variants. But I am also a separate person with a verifible identity. In fact, you will find a separate link to each of our websites on the Zillions of Games page linking to other websites [9].

--Fergus July 6, 2005 02:24 (UTC)

User has 4 prior edits. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 08:40 (UTC)
  • Keep - While my list of articles which I've editted is fairly random and includes a large number of minor edits to fix spelling, grammar, and word choice, it is fairly evident that I've been editting articles outside of ZoG (Heck, my editting experience with ZoG was writing up an article on Jungle and changing the link in the ZoG entry to refer to it...). Zillions of games has been a godsend to me in the area of testing out new abstract board game designs. If nothing else, it helped me develop a chess variant, Fantasy Chess, that I wrote back in middle school. To my knowledge, there is no comparable tool out there. Incidentally, anyone else feel like they're stuck in an Asimov story, trying to prove they're not a robot? :-P
(unsigned vote by SeanDuggan 05:32, 6 July 2005 (he has 185 total previous edits)
Keep Didn't realize I'd forgotten to sign. *wry grin* Although apparently I've got too low a number of edits. -Fuzzy 6 July 2005 16:25 (UTC)
the above user is SeanDuggan, and has already voted previously in addition to the vote above ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:47 (UTC)
Actually, I included the number of edits since I thought it was sufficiently high to indicate to more suspicious minded editors that it was unlikely to be a sockpuppet account! It was intended for info only, with no implication as to being "too low". UkPaolo 6 July 2005 17:06 (UTC)
I'd like to respond to that robot question, but I'm afraid my answer might violate the First Law :-) PittBill 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
  • Delete - Not notable enough. The sockpuppetry is evident. -- BMIComp (talk) 6 July 2005 05:00 (UTC)
There is no sockpuppetry here at all. People with few edits came to vote because of this message on chessvariants.org discussion board. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 15:02 (UTC)
  • Keep - regardless of whether there have been sockpuppet votes (and on the balance of probabilities I suspect there may have been), 68,000 google hits is enough to convince me of notability (though Alexa ranking is disturbingly low). OpenToppedBus - My Talk July 6, 2005 08:45 (UTC)
    • As you may note above, before the article and all the spam was in Wikipedia, there were only 602 google hits, the sheer volume of spam (over 100 articles) is going to have made a significant contribution to increasing 602 to 68,000. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:58 (UTC)
      • Do you seriously think that wikipedia spamming can get you over 60.000 google hits? A simple search for "Zillions of games -wikipedia" should eliminate the wikipedia mirrors, yet there are still over 60.000 hits. Just go through the google results and you will see that most of the hits are not spam. --Conti|✉ July 6, 2005 19:43 (UTC)
  • Comment The Mathematical Association of America has a regular online column called "Math Games". Zillions of Games has been mentioned in at least two editions of that column. For example, see A Zillion Connection Games and Deadly Rooms of Death. PittBill 6 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)
    • As has pretty much everything maths-related that floats around google after link spamming Wikipedia for two years. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 19:10 (UTC)
  • Comment Right, some technical info. According to the aforementioned Alexa site [10], which monitors internet traffic,
    • the traffic rank for Zillions of Games is 461,687
      • the smaller this number the more used (an indicator of notability) it is
      • e.g. the traffic rank for Google is 3
    • Zillions is over a 100,000 worse than the traffic rank for enjoyingtea.com (http://www.enjoyingtea.com] (331,256), which is still not notable. I.e. Zillions is 1/3 more un-notable than enjoyingtea.
I picked this site because it was the first thing that appeared when I searched for Fish Teapot ~~~~ 6 July 2005 18:59 (UTC)
  • It comes as no surprise that you would seize upon a low Alexa ranking, as was mentioned above. This is not the only measure of notability, however. And from comparisons with another (allbeit seemingly unnotable) website, I fail to see how you can make such generalised statements. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
If there was evidence of non-noteworthyness, why do you find it important to state that I seem to point out that there is evidence of non-noteworthyness?
It is precisely because the enjoyingtea website is unnotable that I can show how unnotable the zillions site is. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
But Alexa doesn't really indicate notability. It only serves to record a traffic rank for a given website - ie how many visits a site may be getting, in comparison to any other. As such, you're only recording the number of visits to one website (discounting other language versions, mirror sites, other sites mentioning it, and crucially any download sites). You've got no measure of the number of downloads, nor of the user base. There are plenty of websites which rank worse than Zillions, despite their subject being considered noteworthy. If you wanted to use Alexa to proove to me the notability of a given website, then I would accept what you are saying. It does not, however, prove the notability of a given subject matter, in this case the Zillions of Games system. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
Yes, I know it only indicates how many visits it gets comparatively. But it shows that Zillions gets less visits than obscure websites about drinking tea. I.e. is a less notable website (as it is predominantly a computer thing), wheras tea is drunk in the world at large. ~~~~
I've gotta love your sense of humour creating enjoyingtea. UkPaolo 22:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • The site's Alexa ranking would be relevant if we were discussing an article about the website zillions-of-games.com. The article is about the software, not the website. Should we judge the suitability of World War II as a topic for an article according to the Alexa ranking of worldwarii.com? Chuck July 8, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
  • That is a false dichotomy. World War II does not have an official website, and there are certainly more discussing solely or mostly it than worldwarii.com, so the alexa ranking of the group rather than the individual site would need to be taken into account. This is not the case with Zillions. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 07:38 (UTC)
  • That was exactly my point, Chuck, well put! -Ril- of course this is the case with Zillions, allbeit to a much lesser extent. There's plenty of websites about the software, and plenty of download sites, and sites for the games (hence the need for a categories, etc on Google). There's also other language versions of the site such as ZIllions.de. Also, you mention so-called "official websites" so here's another example for you. The UK city of Reading most certainly has an official website: Reading.gov.uk. It's traffic rank according to Alexa is 323,106. Since this is only about the same as enjoyingtea.com are we to now presume that city is now unnotable? UkPaolo 8 July 2005 08:18 (UTC)
No, that's the official website of the city's council. Which is definitely unnotable (but 1/3 more notable than Zillions - as Alexa confirms). Also, Reading doesn't exist predominantly on computers, and so a more reliable measure of its notability is non-computer based, e.g. newspapers and books. This is not true for Zillions. ~~~~ 8 July 2005 20:14 (UTC)
Still there is "Zillions of Games" subcategory in "Board Games" category both on Alexa and on google. Andreas Kaufmann 6 July 2005 20:31 (UTC)
Anything that has references on multiple other sites is going to get a category. If I created the word "fishian", claimed it was a religion, and then set up 81 seperate sites claiming to be seperate branches of the fishian religion, it would get a category too. This is merely how google identifies categories, not an indicator of noteworthyness. Google (etc.) is predominantly automatic, not determined by people. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
It also gets a category on Dmoz - which prides itself as being a human-edited web directory. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)
I will give you 1 guess who I think was the human that edited Dmoz to include Zillions. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am getting increasingly annoyed by User:-Ril- (aka silly 4-tilde signature)'s repeated arguing on this page. This is intended as a VfD, everyone is entitled to make their point of view. I fail to see why every point needs to have a response made by -Ril-. I feel these comments are unneccessary, and serve only to ensure that the vote appears skewed towards a deletion. I would also point out that he seems to be willing to remove positive comments about Zillions of Games which clearly differ from his point of view (such as this). For the record, there are plenty of Google results for "Zillions of Games", even discounting those from Wikipedia and it's mirrors. I fail to see how such volume of results could be generated merely due to advertising and spam. In addition, as quoted previously there are plenty of valid reviews etc (such as this) which are clearly genuine and not spam. Zillions is also sufficiently notable to gain it's own category on Google. Now, I do not doubt that there have been numerous problems of spam from certain editors here on Wikipedia. Nor do i doubt that there may be sockpuppets in use, including on this VfD. However, this is no reason on it's own for the Zillions article to be deleted. Of course, sockpuppet votes should be discounted, in accordance with policy, but I do not find -Ril-'s constant accusation to be merited. It is perfectly believeable that editor's voting here are likely to be the same editors who may have only edited articles similar to this one, if this is their field of interest. Messages posted on external bulletin boards will also have ensured that editors who may have never used Wikipedia significantly before have been driven to vote. Whilst their votes (assuming they have never edited before) should be discounted, this is no reason to "Bite the Newcomers". Perhaps we can continue to let voting take it's course, without the need for a running commentary as to -Ril-'s latest opinion of a comment. This is a VfD, and everyone can make their say. UkPaolo 6 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)
[11] is called an edit clash. It happens from time to time, particularly during system crashes such as the one that happened last night. Its quite bizarre though that one, ill check it out, it might have caused problems with my edits elsewhere, which is going to be annoying to fix. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)
ContiE's comment was left at 14:07, yours much later at 18:51. For that to have been an edit clash, you must have clicked to "edit the page" before 14:07, and then not saved it until 18:51. This seems unlikely, and even so, the system would prompt you that there was a clash, and another user has edited the page in the meantime. I've never heard of any system crashes causing comments made much earlier to end up deleted when someone adds a further one. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
I know. I wasn't home until 19:30 though, which confuses me immensely. They seem to be having similar issues though at the article about the london bombs, so I think its something to do with this new version of the software theyve put up. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Please note. The term you use in the sentence This is a VfD, and everyone can make their say, namely the word everyone, by definition includes me. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
Absolutely, and you've made your say. Repeatedly. What I was trying to get at was that everyone should be able to make their say, without the need for constant comeback by you, me, or anyone else. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
Indeed, it is preferable if I am able to make my say without the need for constant comeback. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)
Also, please note that Messages on external bulletin boards to get people to come and influence a VfD is extremely frowned upon. Please read the guidelines. Please also indicate who in Wikipedia placed the notice, so I might raise an RfC against them. ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)
I totally agree, I would frown upon such practice myself. I was not endorsing the post, merely quoting it as an explanation why so many fans of the system who have no significant edit history on Wikipedia may be voting. Whilst you may legitimately take the opinion that they are not entitled to vote, that does not give you the right to "bite the newcomers" and accuse them of sockpuppetry. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:30 (UTC)
I totally don't give a damned! The person(s) who notified the chess variant community of the reckless behavior at Wikipedia (i.e., the move to delete the most important entry in the subject matter) were obviously acting out of loyalty to their fellow hobbyists instead of loyalty to their fellow Wikipedia editors. Otherwise, these involved people with an irrefutible right to know would not have known. Ultimately, it is the destructive behavior of a Wikipedia editor who has zero respect for the hobby of chess variants which compelled this betrayal. By the way, Wikipedia does not have any legitimate right to control every aspect of a person's life who happens to be an editor. In life, unfair conflicts sometimes cause people to choose their most important loyalty at the sacrifice of others. --BadSanta
I have zero respect for sockpuppets. By the way, Wikipedia does have a legitimate right to control Wikipedia. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
I do not think we owe it to anyone to beg to justify our significance in terms of popularity. The facts are we exist, we are worldwide and we are passionate about our craft. The heavy-duty web sites of Zillions Of Games and The Chess Variant Pages are one indication. The 100's of members discussion groups such as Yahoo's "Chess Variants", "CV Gameroom" and "3-D Chess" have is another. Our detractors need to admit it. --BadSanta
When you say "our significance", are you admitting to being someone connected to Zillions of Games? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 22:59 (UTC)
  • rolls eyes* If we claimed to have never seen or touched the program, would that make us more credible editors? Anyhow, last word from me on that subject, as I think this is spilling more into something that should be on the discussion page. -Fuzzy 7 July 2005 13:36 (UTC)
Yes, because it would make your edits a secondary reference, rather than a primary one. Wikipedia is about reporting secondary information, not being the original source of it. The wikipedia policies clearly spell this out. ~~~~ 7 July 2005 16:51 (UTC)

Comment out of interest, how many voters here are not part of Zillions of Games in one way or another? And, what is the difference between the vote margin if you only include such voters? ~~~~ 6 July 2005 23:04 (UTC)

Well I'm nothing to do with Zillions, nor have ever heard of it before stumbling across this VfD. I agree with comments previously made which suggest that a large number of voters are (possibly quite obsessed) users of it. As such, they may consider themselves in some way "part" of ZoG (being part of a large user-base) but that is surely no reason for them not to have a vote counted. UkPaolo 7 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)

Comment. What is it supposed to mean to say that someone is part of Zillions? If it means that someone here is an employee or a shareholder or has some other financial interest in Zillions, then I expect no one here is a part of Zillions of Games. What we do have here are some avid users of the program, including myself, who, as such, are in a better position to appreciate the program's significance. --Fergus July 6, 2005 23:52 (UTC)

  • Keep. Notable. We don't need hundreds of stubs advertising Zillions, but it deserves an article. The article is not an ad, and Zillions of Games has more than 602 non-Wikipedia-mirror hits, contrary to Ril's claims. The person who started the article may or may not have some sockpuppet accounts, but that's irrelevant to the merits of the subject itself. Factitious July 7, 2005 09:36 (UTC)
  • Keep. chessvariants.com [12] has Zillions files for about 700 different chess variants, by any number of different inventors. (Full disclosure: I once downloaded the trial version of Zillions and tried it out for a bit, which may disqualify my comments in the eyes of some, even though I decided not to purchase the full version. And yes, I have fewer than 50 edits.) The software is passably good for analysis of positions in chess variants. To say that it's unnecessary because chess variants can be played with just a board and pieces is like saying Microsoft Word is unnecessary because writing can be accomplished with a pencil and paper. Chuck July 8, 2005 03:18 (UTC)
    • User has 59 prior edits~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
      • (1/3 of which are to a single article - Greenlighting and its VfD over the last 3 days). ~~~~ 8 July 2005 19:40 (UTC)
  • Keep. Yes, I know the article borders on spam, but the subject is valid. It needs cleanup, not deletion. --A D Monroe III 8 July 2005 13:12 (UTC)
    • Comment. I have just done a major revision of it that gets into more detail and provides a more critical look at Zillions. --Fergus July 9, 2005 04:17 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep ZoG is a notable game in the Chess Variant community. Samboy 21:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Notable company, in my view. Many of the associated stubs (listed elsewhere) should probably go, but the primary company behind them belongs here ...and to save -Ril- time: I have 1,153 edits as of today. :-) Tobycat 21:36, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete They are not notable. Put a link to a webpage about them on another article. JimRaynor 14:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and for the sake of continuing Ril's position on number of edits, this user has 86 edits

Er, Jim, maybe I'm confused by the "they" and "them" in your vote. Are you voting on deletion of the Zillions of Games article or for the various stub articles that re-route there. Ril is also sponsering the mass-delete of the stubs, which follow a different issue. -Fuzzy 16:26, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Commentary on whether to end the vote

It has been over a week since this VfD went up, and the vote has been overwhelmingly in support of keeping it, with several of the people voting to keep it making their names and webpages available, which is good evidence that they are separate individuals. Let's bring this VfD to an end. Also, I have once again updated the page, adding organization and more content. --Fergus 00:06, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

The fact that most of them are likely sockpuppets trying to pretend to be individuals is a good reason to keep it open until the wider WIKIPEDIA community has had a chance to discuss the matter. Allowing only the ZOG community +3 or so others to vote on the matter is not going to reflect the wikipedia community's will, only the obvious bias of the ZOG community as to their own notability. ~~~~ 01:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
So, you are still pretending to believe that everyone who votes for keeping this entry is a sockpuppet? Disappointing. So, when the vote goes against you, you cry fraud and try to drag this matter on thru corrupt manipulations? Disappointing. So, when the article you voted for deletion is fundamentally improved, expanded, detailed, objectified to the point that it nullifies most reasonable grievances as well as no longer resembles what you originally voted for deletion, you do not reconsider and withdraw? Disappointing. So, you would carelessly destroy all of the superlative labor invested by Fergus Duniho in revising this article? Disappointing. Do you ever do anything admirable? --BadSanta
Come now, BadSanta, there are not supposed to be personal attacks here. Ril seems to believe in his assertations and we shouldn't sink the level of name-calling. Look at the page from the view of an objective viewer. What would such a viewer think of the discussion when he sees it? -Fuzzy 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

By the by, I added a section header to this section since this is all commentary and no voting. I know there are a lot of rules for VfDs, so if I have transgressed, feel no compunctions against telling me so. -Fuzzy 03:12, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

-Ril-, there is no fact at all that most people who have voted to keep this article "are likely sockpuppets trying to pretend to be individuals". Most of them have identified themselves by giving both their names and their websites. I visited several of these websites last night, and you can go do the same. Some, though not many, of these websites even included references back to their Wikipedia accounts. I particularly liked seeing the pictures of Rush Rhees on Ben Heaton's website, because it brought back fond memories of attending the University of Rochester. --Fergus 03:20, July 12, 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.