Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/US Government Simulator

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 DELETE

Non-notable game. Reads like advertising. Al 18:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New users please read: You are welcome to comment but please add your comments to the bottom of the page (not the top) and sign them by adding four tildes (~) which will automatically add your username or IP address and the time and date. Please do not alter the comments or votes of others; this is considered vandalism and grounds for blocking. Please do not comment or vote multiple times pretending you are different people; such comments and votes will be deleted or ignored. Read this for more information. Thank you.

• Delete Advertising. Johntex 19:15, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ad. Jaxl | talk 19:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Government simulation. While being the first government simulation is worth being mentioned in an article, it does not necessarily merit its own article. If this game is as notable as Mr. Joffey here implies, then why are there only 4 google results when searching for "US Government Simulator" and only 67 results when searching for "usgovsim", while other simulation games like Nationstates get over 200,000 results? Jaxl | talk 20:39, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. The sock puppetry here is ridiculous. None of them want to give any proof of notability and instead draw attention off the non-notability of this site by attacking other users here. Randomosityii has actually worked against this site by saying that there are only 247 members, a big sign of non-notability. Feel free to attack me, but my vote is now delete. Jaxl | talk 20:07, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, they're not sock puppets. I know all these people. At least, I think I do... :-o - Calmypal (T) 03:52, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe, but I'm not taking any chances. Jaxl | talk 12:52, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sufficiently notable. Sdedeo 20:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advertising foolishness which deserves to go straight to Wiki-Hell. Digital Thief 21:45, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nn game. Unable to verify claims of notability. ManoaChild 21:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC) (Comment deleted by post below --Icelight 21:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete and watch to make sure that the page (or a clone) is not recreated, as its promoter has stated. WP:NOT a web directory. --Icelight 21:54, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, wiki is not paper. - Calmypal (T) 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep looks factual and worthwhile. Trollderella 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely unnotable even by low wikipedia standards. Dottore So 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP USG is unique, notable, and original. It deserves its own article. --Alxt 01:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Provides relevant information and detailed history and background. Lullabye Muse 03:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely delete. This is not notable at all. And please discount all voters with fewer than 100 edits. The sock puppetry here is absolutely absurd. JDoorjam 13:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Government simulation or delete ouright - 10:06, 18 August 2005 (forgot to sign --Calton | Talk 22:49, August 18, 2005 (UTC))
• Delete: The current article is unencyclopedic, uninformative and thin, and the underlying subject (one specific sim) is similarly non-noteable. Merge into a generalized article about Govsims/Nationsims or delete. -- RyanFreisling @ 18:03, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a web guide. Looks like a minor web forum with an unusual theme. Less than 250 members, far short of my threshold of 50,000. --Carnildo 18:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a web directory. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Simply not a notable enough subject, and a rambling and dull article. Right at this point of time it has four guests and zero members online, and presumably one of the guests is myself. As alternative history it might one day be notable, if it stirs up enough interest (see also Soc.history.what-if or [1] amongst many others). -Ashley Pomeroy 23:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete normally I would say keep but all these sockpuppets drive me insane. Kill it with fire and acid. Redwolf24 00:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The "excessive spamming, rampant complaining, and extreme partisan bickering" noted in the article seems to have followed it here. -- Norvy (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete post haste. Protect if necessary. Radiant_>|< 10:35, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
• Condense and Merge into Government simulation. Caerwine 22:26, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not notable. Alex rank of over 2.6 million. Google lists 0 links to their site. Wikibofh 03:09, August 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (previously reserved pending further info) A reference below by John Joffey states that 'AGS and the other Govsims/Internationalsims already have their own pages', I can only find Adventure Game Studio as I do not know any other Govism/Internatiolisms names. AGS in that article refers to software which enables game writing and cites games that have been made using this software. The article up for VfD is an online game. Can anyone cite other pages that John might be referring to before I make a decision? Alf 22:55, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• He's talking about American Government Simulation, if that's what you were asking. That article was put up for VFD by members of this government simulation because of the "double standards" John Joffey is citing from this article being deleted and AGS having an article. Jaxl | talk 23:25, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jaxl, that article reads like an encylopedic, intelligible explanation of an online political forum which simulates various aspects of government. The article up for VfD reads like an advertisment for an online computer game simulating various aspects of government. Vote changed to delete. Alf 23:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP! It's Factual! www.usgovsim.com 16:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP!- So apparently other sites get to have their own pages, but USG doesn't? Hypocrites Spotle

• User's only votes. Wikibofh 01:11, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete USG is being quickly outpaced by a variety of other Government Simulators and remains one of the least active out of them. American Government, National Government, USPolitics, etc. all have much more active users. Should be merged with other Government simulator topics. Wikipedia is not a billboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.38.81 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 17 August 2005

~ Clie

• KEEP. It is an incredibly active simulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.195.235.188 (talk • contribs) 17:58,17 August 2005
• DELETE I echo "While being the first government simulation is worth being mentioned in an article, it does not necessarily merit its own article." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.38.81 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 17 August 2005
• DELETE I'm with Jax on this one. Merge it into the other government simulator article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharris0512 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 17 August 2005
• KEEP If you're gonna delete this, then I demand that you delete all the other Government Simulators with their own pages. USG just moved from another site "www.usgovsim.com". It was moved because the server was crappy as hell. How do I know? Because I dropped $125 to help buy the damn server! So stop being a bunch of whiney hypocrites and shut your unknowledgeable mouths! - User: Randomosityii

• User's 7th edit. Wikibofh 01:38, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Keep this up. I mean lets not bash anyones sim here. If you want to make a encyclopedia about your sim thats fine and we have a right to as well - Karasoth

• User's only edits. Wikibofh 01:04, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP!!! USG deserves a page just as much if not more so than any of the other government simulators — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.115.49 (talk • contribs) 19:00, 17 August 2005
• KKEEEEPP! w00t w00t. Carrifel

• User's only edit. Wikibofh 01:07, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP The US Government Simulator is the original and deserves its own article. Not to mention, elections are done through an actual formula instead of the way that other sims run their elections. TylerKCampbell

• User's second edit. Jaxl | talk 01:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP USG is the first and original US Government Simulator. Regardless of the new stats on the new server, USG does and will always deserve a Wiki article. -- Eric3446

• User's only edit. Jaxl | talk 02:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP Wikipedia is not just for ancient events but for all events, and the events of USG are not ancient but ongoing and at the forefront of innovation, much like Wikipedia is.--msrpotus

• User's first edit. Wikibofh 04:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Bold textItalic textKEEP this game is the longest running gov sim game. First of all. Secendly Us Gov Sim helped at least one ex player win a Elected office using his campaining skill's he learned from this game for speachwritting. as for Noteariblity this game used to be on Avidgamers. so im not so sure the google spider would look there or on other Msg boards.

This Game has had post about it on Democratic Underground,Daily Kos and other Polical messge Boards and blogs.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groton (talk • contribs) 07:37, August 18, 2005 ...user's only edit. Wikibofh 13:44, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Weak keep - What put me off was its vanity style. I don't know about its notability, but the recent rewrite is a considerable improvement. Gloop 15:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• User's second edit. Jaxl | talk 16:01, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Previously done a few minor things under IP address User:82.43.52.87 Gloop 16:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP!, I've had enough of wikipedia douches trying to get the whole govsim/nationsim genre deleted 213.67.49.17 17:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:' It's as significant, if not moreso, than other similar games that have pages on Wikipedia Ryanpickett2005 01:27, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• User's 10th and 11th edits...and number nine was vandalism Wikibofh 02:48, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:I find it ludicrous that there are votes to delete this. Everything in this article is 100% factual seeing as I have written all of it and I founded the game. As for it being "non-notable" it is the single most notable Government Simulation game that exists. It was the FIRST comprehensive government simulation, and I pride myself knowing that this game is very much a learning experience as everybody who plays gains significant knowledge about american politics and government. Continuing, "AGS" another government simulator that came after this one, has a page here on wikipedia, and you dont see me voting to delete that, or the biased page on "Government Simulation" written by somebody not affiliated with USG and who conviently, it seems, left USG information off that page except for 1 or 2 lines. I am relatively new to wikipedia, so excuse me that I had the line "advertising" the game. I removed it, so there are no more qualms.

--John Joffey

• Comment:Clie, Sorry, but AGS, NPS, and PolUS arent "passing USG up" (and by the way, get your facts straight...PolUS MERGED INTO USG!, Thanks for bringing your garbage into the discussion) and USG is certainly not being "outpaced". Thank you for wasting my time. I would really like to know what all these random people have against having this page up? So far, nobody is really giving any good reasons for these votes to Delete. Now, if a Admin from Wikipedia would like to contact me to discuss making this page more suited for Wikipedia, I would have no problem editing to meet these guidelines. However, outright deletion would just uphold the double standard of letting a copycat game, AGS, have its own page on here and USG not. Also, I am not going to vote on my own page, because I dont think deletion is a valid option. If a Wikipedia Admin wants to contact me, my AIM is PillagerConclave

--John Joffey

• Comment:HERE! HERE! Joffey! What you wrote was factual!

--Frank Www.usgovsim.com

Enough with the sock puppets. Al 20:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a sock puppet, I'm the former VP at USG, and current Representative for Michigan's Third District there! Frank 16:48 (EST), 17 August 2005

That's right, he's not a sock puppet. - Calmypal (T) 22:19, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I beg your pardon. "Meatpuppet" then. --Al 19:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:What you are is someone unaware of the difference between "factual" and "notable". Ben-w 20:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:NationStates is a BUSINESS-backed game made by somebody promoting his book and the idea of corporate government. USGovsim is not a business, its is just a free web-based forum game. It is THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game, so the fact that you want to delete our page, but AGS (American Government Sim) a game that has been around alot less longer than USG and more or less a copycat game is allowed to have a page is a double standard. This is a FREE encyclopedia, and this page is 100% Fact. USG was *the* pioneer in Govsim-based gaming, so if there are going to be pages about Govsims on here, then I am going to make sure the facts are known.

--John Joffey

• Comment:If this site is "THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game", then you should have no problem citing refrences that establish its notability. Unless you can cite a large google result, a media or a news source that has done a report on this game, or some other piece of material by an independent site/organisation/whatever, then there is no reason why this page cannot be mentioned in Government simulation instead. Furthermore, this debate is not about AGS, nor does anyone here care about what % of this article is fact. From what I can see, AGS will probably be VFD'd eventually anyway. Jaxl | talk 23:14, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Additionally, the web site was recently moved to a new URL, so references on Google is less than important. As a forum, I wouldn't expect that spider would follow it. This is a notable site, as far as I can tell. Brian Sayrs 21:43, 2005 August 17 (UTC)

What was the old URL? It might help to establish notability. ManoaChild 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The old site and all the quotes on it are gone now, allowing many a politician to breathe a sigh of relief. - Calmypal (T) 22:50, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

(But now that I think about it, http://www.moobaq.com/usgboard)

• Comment:Cane we just end this nonsense now and let us keep our page? I mean seriously, the only "delete" votes are coming from people totally clueless about the gaming world of govsims. The fact that they are passing judgment on us in such an ingnorant manner is really out of line. I implore Wikipedia Admins to remove the "deletion discussion" as soon as possible.

--John Joffey

• Comment. The question isn't whether the article is factual, but rather whether the game is notable enough for its own article. That a number of passionate fans of the game have come here to "stuff the ballot box" and to counter what they perceive as an attack is all-too-common. There are thousands of games out there, all who would claim to be "unique" in some way, with some passionate fans. Should they all have their own article? Wikipedia is not a webgame directory. This article is not encyclopedic. --Al 13:38, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would also suggest that those users who have signed up primarily for purposes of participating in this VfD actually look around and get a better feel for what Wikipedia is all about. --Al
• Comment. I have rewritten to remove a lot of the advertisingness that drew initial complaint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomn (talk • contribs) 09:47, 18 August 2005
• Comment: Mr. Joffey, calling people ignorant does not help your cause. All we are asking you to do is to give proof that your site is notable, which you repeatedly avoid doing. It should not be that difficult; after all, this site is "THE MOST notable of any Government Simulator game", isn't it? Also, it is irrelevant whether or not Google picks up someone mentioning this site on a message board; that does not mean it is notable. Unless you can find a good number of different people on different boards (preferably ones with a large userbase) that have mentioned this site, then there is no notability here. Groton here also mentions that this site had been on Avidgamers (a statement which I have yet to see any evidence for); and even if it was, then why is it not currently there? And is that the only site that this game was on? Mr. Joffey, please give evidence supporting your claims. Jaxl | talk 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment:Not a single one of you can tell me why USG cannot have its own Wikipedia page, yet AGS and the other Govsims/Internationalsims already have their own pages? DOUBLE STANDARD. You let them keep theirs, let us keep ours. We are the most notable one. Sorry that there is no "Govsim Notability Tracker." I honestly cant beliueve you people have nothing better to do than bash wikipedia pages you know NOTHING about.

--John Joffey

• Comment:Jaxl....247 members and 40,000 posts...IN JUST 2 MONTHS. That's right...2 months. But hey, you're so (personal attack removed) BIASED that you won't recognize that. Also, we're not on Avidgamers anymore because it got too slow and we decided to BUY our own site and forums. That's right...we BOUGHT the site instead of using a free one. That's why it's no longer on Avidgamers...but (personal attack removed) you can't realize that.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by Randomosityii (talk • contribs) 17:26, August 18, 2005

• Comment: Biased towards what? Towards just wanting some facts? Forgive me for wanting to know more about this site. That information you provided would have been just fine, had you not added "...but (personal attack removed) you can't realize that." You should also note that 247 members isn't a lot, "But hey, you're so (personal attack removed) BIASED that you won't recognize that." Furthermore, nobody cares that you had to dish out a whole $125 to buy a "damn server"; no one here told you to do that. And you should note that I changed my vote from delete to merge. I do not want this to be deleted. If you have some free time (which it seems you do, since you have nothing better to do than to insult people who don't even want this deleted), then please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Civility. Thanks. Jaxl | talk 17:41, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

USGovSim.com was mentioned on the September 1, 2004 edition of "Cafe Politics" on WKNT Knightcast, which is student radio for the University of Central Florida. UCF is one of the largest public universities in the nation with over 40,000 students. This discussion was not advertising based and discussed government simulators in relations to the study of politics during the 2004 US Elections. If necessary, I will attempt to attain a copy of that night's show for verification. -Roary Snider, Executive Producer, Cafe Politics on Knightcast WKNT 67.8.248.211 02:48, 19 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.