Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/6 Billion

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. howch e ng {chat} 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

6 Billion

NN board game vanity by Dacoutts (talk · contribs) aka David Coutts (talk · contribs). — Dunc|☺ 12:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom Tom Harrison ^(talk) 14:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all the original research from Mr. Coutts; I was going to give him a few days to find a real source before nominating this series myself. Note that beyond the 5 articles nominated today, he wrote Differential replication and Exponentialist, both of which are now redirects to Darwinism and Exponentialism, respectively. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 15:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as per nom. Pete.Hurd 17:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did not add this page in the first place (ask yourselves, when was the game entry entered?), though I did improve the entry. However, the game is not a part of my recent edits. The game can stand on its own in Wikipedia, without any reference to Exponentialist theory.I think you are over-reacting.

Given that other boardgames are listed on Wikipedia, this feels more like being burned at the stake for heresy than a reasoned response. Dacoutts

Comment: In retrospect, you are correct, the article is not linked with the objectionable set. I have removed the inappropriate cross-namespace link to your user page. I still think that the article smells of vanity and self-promotion, but I can quite easily find the game on Google, so it's not wholly unnotable. The links at the bottom especially smell of vanity, but I remove my delete vote and leave a weak keep. In the future, you might want to avoid contributing to articles so linked to yourself - it really is vanity, and many Wikipedians will react badly to that and indeed try to burn you at the stake. My apologies for painting all your contributions with the same brush. -- stillnotelf has a talk page 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted, though I note that the 6 Billion entry is still marked for deletion. As far as I could tell there are no guidelines that preclude me correcting what was an inaccurate entry for my game. I reject the charge of vanity, but you're entitled to your own opinion.

Dacoutts

The game 6 Billion was distributed by Rio Grande Games in the USA. I've probably sold half of the 2,500 copies I produced. The game was listed in the Games International GAMES 100 for 2001 at number 9. It made the front cover of Games Games Games Issue 137 (see 6 Billion Reviews. It's listed on Boardgamegeek at BGG entry for 6 Billion. The entry shows that 158 people have said that they own the game. I published the story of the games development and production twice - once in Counter magazine, and once here. I took the game to Spiel '99 at Essen - Spiel'99 at Essen.

Dacoutts

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mo0[talk] 22:57, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete thanks to DACoutts for quantifying how minor the game was. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 23:51, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Stillnotelf Jcuk 10:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. --Agamemnon2 10:21, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per the nomination, delete. - brenneman ^(t)^(c) 13:15, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Guy. 1250 units sold is insignificant. -- JLaTondre 16:07, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not significant enough to justify a Wikipedia entry. Stifle 23:49, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete as above Pete.Hurd 01:59, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.