Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zillions games: Difference between revisions

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete all articles - Mailer Diablo 2 July 2005 16:59 (UTC)

Includes (but isn't limited) to the following: Bad Neighbors (Zillions game), Bubbles (Zillions game), Bubbles II, Bump (Zillions game), Butterflies (Zillions game), Cat & Mouse II, Cat & Mouse III, Cleanup (Zillions game), Cleanup II, Cleanup III, Clingon (redirected), Clingon III, Crisscross (Zillions game), Domina 4, Domino Puzzles (Zillions game), Doors III, Doughnuts (Zillions game), Drop (Zillions game), Dropmania, Fruit (Zillions game), Fruit Basket (Zillions game), Fruit II, Harry (Zillions game), Hearts (Zillions game), Jugs (Zillions game), Jugs II, Liars (Zillions game), Marbles (Zillions game), Marbles II, Marbles III, Matchsticks (Zillions game), Matchsticks II, Max Solver, Mem (Zillions game), Mem II, Nutts Solver, Pancakes (Zillions game), Pento Solver, Quadrilles (Zillions game), Rabbits (Zillions game), Row (Zillions game), Saltwater (Zillions game), Spaghetti (Zillions game), Tetrasticks (Zillions game), Triki, and Unplay Chess.

Were mass tagged by User:-Ril- as a speedy for advertising, but doesn't qualify by the criteria. I think that at least th e variants of the same game need to go. Still, not every game is notable in itself. Delete the lot. An article about the collection as a whole is IMO acceptable. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:08, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:Karlscherer3 has created literally hundreds of articles which can be seen as spam advertising his website. N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer

• Delete wikipedia is not a product catalogue. ~~~~ 10:27, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, JPat
• Delete, this is overarticlization. Radiant_>|< 10:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all. Judging by the non-catchy names this is the contents of one of those "1001 Awesome Games for Windows" packs. The pack itself is not notable, let alone the minigames contained within. Master Thief Garrett^Talk 10:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment User:Karlscherer3 is also User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17 (see edits to Turing Machine), and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58. ~~~~ 10:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete them all. NN --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 10:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All I'm in favour of keeping all released games, even obscure ones. However, freeware mini-games made with the Zillions of Games engine and released online don't really count. If we're being really nice I suppose these could be merged into a list, but even that's pushing it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:03, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete them all, and inform user of criteria for an article, what wikipedia is not. Proto 11:11, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. This user (Karlscherer3) has also edited many puzzle-related articles, on occasion making vanity edits, and re-structuring them to suit how his Zillions games are organised. ~~~~ 11:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. In addition to Zillions-Games related articles, this user (Karlscherer3) also seems to be adding articles suiting his own personal mathematical theories and terminology, rather than standard terms or theories. ~~~~ 11:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete All, Karl Scherer is obviously not aware about Wikipedia policy not publish own inventions and original research (Wikipedia:No_original_research). Andreas Kaufmann 12:05, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete the lot of them as spamvertizing, and send Karlscherer3 a shot across the bow with respect to future activities along these lines. -- BD2412 ^talk 12:37, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)
• Delete all - probably spamvertising, definitely nn. OpenToppedBus - Talk 12:45, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

• "probably advertising" ? how do you know without researching the truth? There is no advertising in this at all, and I make no money witrh this. Please don't spread half-truths or liews without knowing what is going on, thanks. I was asked to write an article for each game by administrator Silke two. I onloy started doing this AFTER it was suggested to me by an administor. If you now want to delete them I suggest, you sit together and agree on your policies. That I document only my own games, has simple reasons like shear workload associated with it etc. I have asked other Zillions game to document their game in Wiki accordingly. Since these are many, I am not willing to document their games. I have doiscussed all that in length with admin Silke2 already, and we agreed on the important subjects.

Regarding maths: yes, some definitions have been invented by me about 20 years ago, since in the area of tilings there was no word for the property of neat and nowhere-neat tilings then.

I'm just going to interrupt here, to point out continuous tiling, and its opposite, dis-continuous tiling. ~~~~ 15:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But this and other definitions have meanwhile (over the last 2 decades) become used more and more amongst people who research in these and similar tilings, see Journal of Recreational mathematics. Special areas of maths have their special language; this makes it much easier to communicate.

Therefore, (with the exception maybe on the article of 'slices'), I think the documentation of everything else is well justified.

The area of tilings and puzzles has undergone quite a lot of blossoming the last two decades (maybe widely unknown to the ordinary public or even to mathematicians who do not read journals like JRM).

Cheers, Karl (unsigned comments by User:Karlscherer3)

Karl, we are discussing both the game articles, and your edits to puzzle related articles. Wikipedia is not a place for original research, and you should certainly not be adding your own name and claimed achievements into Wikipedia. See Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer for the full list of articles in question. ~~~~ 13:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to point out the fact that recreational mathematicians are not professional mathematicians. And the terminology of mathematics is generally regarded as being decided by the professional, rather than amateur, mathematicians. ~~~~

• It doesn't matter whether it is commercial or not, it is still a flood of articles intended to promote the author. Delete. Morwen - Talk 13:40, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Apartr from that, I have no qualms if you delete or edit any of my stuff; I already said that to Silke2. You admins know better than me what you want in wikipedia and not. I will not take perosnal any of that, I only try to share information and increase knowledge. indeed was not aware that scientif results are not wanted in Wikipedia. I apologize therefore if I did not fulfill your guidelines, but it was unintended. Keep up the great work!!! Karl (unsigned by User:Karlscherer3, tidied by ~~~~)

By the way, Zillions games are without violence, blood splatter, horror,etc, but thinking, intelligence games without time pressure and stress. They represent a much more healthy way to enjoy games that the point-and-shoot arcade games etc. Yes, they deserve more publication because they can help people increase their mind power and teach cids better skill than shooting well. I hope you can see these aspects and appreciate them. Let us foster the good! Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC) (sorry for not signing properly last time);I dont talk much usually; use my time more for creative work. Karlscherer3 13:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia, not a publicity company, or an arbiter of public morals. Please bear that in mind. ~~~~ 14:28, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• While we appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, it is generally accepted here that if you or your creations (e.g. the games) are famous, someone else will write an article on them. Hence, they are sometimes called self-promotion, or vanity. Yours, Radiant_>|< 13:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete them all. --Xcali 15:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Oleg Alexandrov 15:53, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete all, and tell the user to stop it.-Splash 16:02, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all and lay the smack down on User:Karlscherer3 Tom k&e 16:42, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all of them but Tom k&e should be careful not to bite the newbies... If you read his comments, he just seems not to know WP policy to well. Try to be nice. Sasquatch′↔Talk↔Contributions 17:18, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

He is not a newbie. User:Karlscherer3 is also User:210.55.230.18 and User:202.37.72.100, and User:210.55.230.20, and User:210.55.230.17 (see edits to Turing Machine), and User:222.152.25.248, and User:219.89.37.58. These edits go back to at least 2002. ~~~~ 20:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Being a newbie has more to do with how aware you are of policy than with how long you've been here (apparently a brief time 3 years ago) Slike2 20:57, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• delete all Dunc|☺ 19:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all, not encyclopedically notable and no potential to become so. Barno 19:41, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: this discussion refers to zillions games. Please remove from your category or specify articles which are not games. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer. Slike2 20:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, this refers to all of them. The title of this VFD originates from merging two seperate VFDs. ~~~~ 20:20, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Almost 100% of the edits he has made to puzzle related articles which are not explicitely about the games, are to add links to his zillions website, and introduce terms and ideas he himself (above) admits he made up (i.e. original research), into a field of mathematics that, apart from him and a small group of his (non-professional) friends, does not use them.

Apart from this, his edits are to add things such as "Karl Scherer [i.e. him] solved this maths problem on date X, with the following theorem", which is both original research, and definitely non-neutral, as well as vanity.

The articles will remain in the category for the duration of this VFD. ~~~~ 20:46, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Most of the reasons given for deletion here are based on the assumption that these articles are ads for non-notable games. I agree that those articles should be deleted, but if I vote to delete, will my vote be interpreted to apply to other unrelated articles that I haven't even seen? Factitious 23:58, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe the assumption was made that they were ads, just that they were non-notable. I think it's stupid to delete clearly factual information about anything, no matter how obscure, but most people seem to disagree. Unfortunate. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In that case, Extremely strong keep on articles that are not zillins games. This vote is clearly marked 'zillions games', and all examples given are zillions games. There has been nothing on this page to indicate that some of the articles listed have not been created by other people, edited by other people, and so on. It would be a complete violation of process if an admin were to delete them. Slike2 02:15, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The other non-zillions-games articles are attempts by Karl Scherer to promote his own personal categorisation and terminology. These things are not notable usage, mathematicians and others do not use his terms. Also, many of them are simply an attempt to justify adding all zillions games as links - by splitting the games up into very small categorisations, creating an article for each category, and then adding external links to the games in each article. It is a massive abuse of Wikipedia. This is why I am including them in the deletion and urge an Extremely strong delete (n.b. I have voted elsewhere, so this vote should not count in addition to my earlier vote). ~~~~ 07:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Here, it sounds like you're saying "delete everything listed"; below, you exclude pre-existing articles like tiling. So it seems vital to clarify the intent, and to ask what care has been taken to separate edits from new article creations. In any case, do we have prior history with Karl Scherer that suggests intentional bad behavior? He claims he was asked to create articles by an administrator (presumably Slike2, misspelled); is that disputed, or was it misunderstood, or what? Yes, we need a massive deletion of all the separate games articles, perhaps accompanied by a merging of the content into a single article. Yes, we need to educate the author about what's expected in Wikipedia. What I see is a somewhat misguided attempt to contribute, not a deliberate attempt to spam or to distort mathematics and games terminology — unless I hear facts to the contrary. But this proposed vote is not clearly enough limited in scope. It strikes me as excessive on the part of -Ril-, more of an angry rant than a reasoned response. In fact, with a little guidance Karl might happily do most of the cleanup work himself, sparing the need for this debate and vote. Otherwise, Niteowlneils seems to have it about right. (And yes, I've heard of Pollyanna and read Candide.) KSmrq 10:37, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you check the category, you will see that tiling is not in it(, and never was). ~~~~ 21:38, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Check his talk page, you'll see our discussion, and his completely reasonable and polite responses. And -Ril-'s not-quite-so-reasonable comments. He had his games linked from one of the pages, I informed him that editors don't tolerate external links of that sort, and that they would only make sense if there was an article about them directly. I also pointed out that some people don't like to have what they deem is 'minor' information in wikipedea, and noted that he should try to put them in one big article. I doubt his intent was to advertise, only to inform people about the things he knew the most about and was most enthusiastic about. I find this whole process sad to see, it should have been handled in another way first, considering the user's positive attitude. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What is really sad in reading his talk page is that he seems to have begun creating all the Zillions pages because he believes that's what you recommended! Yet, despite that, -Ril- launches an assault. Karl claims to have a doctorate in mathematics, which is prima facie evidence that he may be a bit strange (said tongue in cheek), but not that he is unwilling or unable to place nicely with others. Yes, I believe adding numerous links on WP pages to one's own work shows a certain lack of professional and social awareness; it is inappropriate, disturbing, and creates a bad impression. We can only hope our own gaffes are treated more helpfully and with more compassion. KSmrq 16:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

If you check the contributions he made before that, you will note that almost 100% of articles he created are either

(a) articles describing a classification which he created, and is not used by professional mathematicians. I.e. it is original, and very non-standard, non-notable, research. or

almost 100% of which list many zillions games as external links

exactly as if the entire set of articles is designed to create enough articles to spread the games accross, so that all of them can be listed without there being a huge list of external links in any one article. This is an appalling abuse of Wikipedia. It seems to be designed to function as a zillions games catalogue, for spreading accross Wikipedia mirrors, and causing google-bombing. If this is the case it is to be condemned in the strongest terms.

(b) are articles describing friends of his, which is also original research, not NPOV, and non-notable

On top of that, many of his edits to pre-existing articles are to insert claims that he (i.e. Karl Scherer) has solved such-and-such a maths problem. Which is (a) not verified, (b) not NPOV, (c) original research (as it is him doing the insertion), and (d) a massive vanity edit

This users edits over the past 2.5 years constitute nothing but these, and consequently I can see him only as a massive problem. His behaviour is an abuse of Wikipedia, and even a newbie in their first edit would know that they aren't supposed to behave like this. ~~~~ 21:48, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I linked to Wikipedia:Assume good faith on your talk page, obviously you havn't read it, which is too bad. Read what KSmrq said. You have absolutely no reason to act as you are acting, considering his polite replies to even your criticism. What are you basing your hostility on? An explanation would have sufficed, instead of an immediate rfd and the crap you left on his user page. Slike2 22:32, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The indents were getting a bit deep for me, so I'm responding to -Ril- at the same level as my previous comment. We agree on two key points. (1) Yes, his edits look a bit egocentric. (2) The Zillions proliferation is over-the-top. We also agree that if he is deliberately google-bombing that is abusive and to be condemned. We disagree that such is the case. We also disagree, apparently, about the best means to resolve these difficulties. Read his own words on his talk page; they do not support your position that his behavior is a manifestation of evil intent. Nor can I agree that "a newbie in their first edit would know". By all means, we seem to be reaching a massive concensus that the behavior and its artifacts need correcting, so some action is called for. However, at this point we do not have concensus that we need an overreaching deletion to accomplish this, nor do we have consensus that the person (not the behavior) is to be attacked. Can we please first try educating the guy? After all, what kinds of social skills can we expect of someone living in a country with more sheep than humans (tongue firmly in cheek)? Also, I understand (and sympathize) that you are upset because the boor spilled red wine on your beautiful white Wikipedia carpet; but please turn down the flames, at least reserving boldface for votes. The mess can be cleaned up, and we might as well be civil in doing it. It was a very good catch spotting the problem contributions; it's a pity they couldn't have been corrected sooner and more calmly. KSmrq 05:21, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Red wine stains are easy to remove from a white carpet. Due to useful feature of chemistry, if poured on top immediately, they can be removed by white wine. ~~~~ 10:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

KSmrq, could you please remove the referance to red wine above? It is incredibly superfluous, yet it's apparently making it incredibly difficult for -Ril- to acknowledge every single point you've made in your edit. Slike2 17:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The references are a metaphor rather than superflous nebulosity. ~~~~ 23:24, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He said the equivelant of "I understand that think he's a boor and messed up something you like, but please stop being so rude, and reserve boldface for votes", and you answered with "the solution to the problem is a vfd", which is not a reply to any part of his message. Yes, fine, you think this deserves a vfd. That's not his point. His point is, if I may offer a blunt translation - or rather, lets just say that this is my point - considering Karlscherer3's reasonable responses, an alternate solution may have been to talk to him first, and that even if you do decide to vfd some of his articles, there's no need to be a righteous bastard about it. Slike2 01:21, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Curious, how perceptions differ. The white wine suggestion made me smile. I took it as a tacit acknowledgement of my diagnosis, and a hopeful sign of a more productive tone. At the end of the day, style and personality aside, we all want a better Wikipedia. Red wine is a metaphor, and (at the risk of speaking for -Ril-) white wine might be taken as an alternative to ripping out the carpet. Is either of you two (Slike2 or -Ril-) experienced Wikipedians willing to guide Karl through the nuances of what is and is not an appropriate contribution? Shall we first give him a chance to clean up his own mess, perhaps also assisted by a targeted delete of only the Zillions sprawl, leaving him to back out the vanity edits? (And I use "vanity" in the Wikipedia sense, with no interpretation of user intent.) That would seem to agree with the opinions collected in this discussion, and let us return to building better pages! KSmrq 2005 June 28 08:11 (UTC)

It doesn't seem curious to me :) My expectations of -Ril-'s good will being not as high as yours may account for the difference. In regards to the metaphor, I fear it's lost on me - I have no idea which action correlates with ripping out the carpet, and there seems to be no mention of "having the spiller himself clean out the carpet" (and it wouldn't seem to be red wine, because these 'stains' are really quite easy to get out). I don't know how well your suggestion would work at this point, but asking him to clean it is worth a try, though I doubt it'll do much: he seems to have been discouraged to the point of leaving [1], thanks to -Ril-'s absolutely innapropriate behaviour (I'm not talking about the vfd). I'm afraid I'm no mentor as to wikipedia policy, as I've stated before. If someone could name all the policies that apply, I would be able to, well, copy them to his user page. Slike2 28 June 2005 11:47 (UTC)

I am personally of the opinion that Karl Scherer is still here, but using a sockpuppet. Not being a Developer, I am unable to test my strong suspicion as to who it is, I have asked for a check to provide potential evidence, but it has not yet been carried out as far as I know. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:21 (UTC)

Could you fill us in? Slike2

Of course, I could. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)

• Delete all of them, not what this place is for jamesgibbon 20:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Oh crumbs, what an accumulation of adcruft. Send this in and clean the whole lot out. Anthony Appleyard 21:16, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all! I'm afraid most of the games don't have any potential to once become known and famous enough to give enough material for good articles about all of them. — Pt _(T) 22:35, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete These are not notable now, and will be singularly non-notable in ten years. One thing an encyclopedia is about is posterity. These games are not worthy. Denni☯ 00:44, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Delete all. Notability not established. — Ливай | ☺ 05:19, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. Notability not established. JamesBurns 06:28, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all game articles and any pure original research topical articles; cleanup other affected topical articles to reduce inappropriate original research and self-promotion of contributor's personal website and projects. Niteowlneils 17:24, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hedley 18:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all drini ☎ 21:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the lot. --W(t) 23:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
• Comment: What about Puzzling object? There could be arguments for its deletion, but it doesn't look like advertising, and being created by someone who made many deletion-worthy articles does not qualify it for deletion. I think we should be careful about mass deleting articles without checking whether they all should actually be deleted. Perhaps this could be limited to the (many) articles mentioning Zillions? I haven't looked through the hundreds of articles being discussed here, so I'm not sure what the best way of sifting through them would be, but I am concerned that a few legitimate ones will be deleted because of the others. Factitious 23:53, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. It has been created by someone who wishes to promote his own categorisation of puzzles. Look at the "mechanical class:XYZ" aspect. There is very little else in content terms. ~~~~ 07:29, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a useful article, yes. However, it is not an advertisement, nor is it about a game, and the arguments on this page simply do not apply to it. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment: Tiling is one of the articles tagged with this VfD notice. Is anyone seriously proposing that it be deleted? That article has been around for years, and contains very useful information. Please, limit this to Zillions games. Factitious 00:13, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

Comment. No it isn't. Please look carefully. It is a different tag, indicating that the Tiling article has been subjected to much editing by Karl Scherer and needs to be cleaned up and verified in consequence. It is also a different colour (the deletion tags are light blue, the one at Tiling is a form of dark purple). ~~~~ 07:28, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't check the tag carefully enough on that one. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)

• I support the deletion of Text based adventure game, because it provides no information not already present in Interactive fiction. It should be made into a redirect. However, none of the delete votes above seem to apply to it. It's not an ad, original research, a neologism, or even non-notable. It should not be included in this VfD listing. Factitious 00:33, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: removed Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game (suggested merge), Puzzle jewelry/Puzzle box (both may be googled, and images of both may be found). Others that are clearly exempt from this vfd may exist. Slike2 02:50, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment:I have put Text based adventure game/Puzzle adventure game back into the category. They duplicate material at Adventure game, to suit Karl Scherer's own categorisation. ~~~~ 07:25, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Many people on this page appear to have been voting based on the misconception that the pages under discussion were ads for Zillions games. It is unreasonable to try to make those votes apply to Text based adventure game. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment I've removed them again, putting the non-redundant part of the articles into the adventure games discission section. Slike2 14:33, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE ALL. I've read about one third of them and can't stand it any more. First year programming assignments at best. bjd
• I vote to delete the articles about Zillions games. I vote to keep the other articles under consideration here, until they can be discussed on their own terms. When that happens, I'll probably vote to delete or merge them, depending on the case. Factitious 12:28, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete the games. Abstain on the others. — P Ingerson (talk) 13:25, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete all. My opinion as a mathematician is that Tetrad (tiling) is non-notable / original research, and that Karl Scherer doesn't pass the professor test. (By the way, the definition of "Tetrad" in the opening paragraph of that article is wrong. Boundaries have measure 0.) dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:21 (UTC)
• Comment: Puritile and Pure tiling fall in the same category. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 22:24 (UTC)
  • note. Please also see the related VFD Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Karl Scherer. ~~~~ 28 June 2005 22:29 (UTC)
• Comment: Mechanical puzzle, Topological puzzle, Routefinding puzzle, Disentanglement puzzle, etc., seem to be legitimate topics. They ought to at least have a separate VfD discussion, since they weren't listed explicitly above. dbenbenn | talk 28 June 2005 23:58 (UTC)
  • The 3rd paragraph of the 3 that introduce this VfD is N.b. apart from the 40 or so listed above there are at least 104 articles of this form. This is a place to consider deletion of all of them as a collection. The list is available at Category:Alleged spam by Karl Scherer. The first 4 words of the first paragraph are Includes (but isn't limited), before listing 40 of the articles. This clearly indicates that this VfD includes all the articles in the category. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:37 (UTC)
• Delete all "He who talks doesn't know. He who knows doesn't talk." --Lao Tzu i.e. Self-promotion is not neccessary for work of true notability. Therefore, Wikipedia:No original research. Psora 29 June 2005 01:15 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think that this discussion has become confused by matters of personality and etiquette, discussion of which belongs on Talk pages. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to Votes for deletion#The most important things to remember and remember that the discussion is about the articles in question, not the people involved. Psora 29 June 2005 17:24 (UTC)
• Comment this VfD has been open for 6 days now. I thought they ended after 5? There seems to me a clear majority for deletion of all the articles from the votes cast so-far. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 20:39 (UTC)
• Comment N.b. the current voting state is 1 to Keep, 1 to Keep the non-game articles but delete the rest, 1 to abstain about the non-game articles, but delete the rest, and 30 to delete all the articles. This constitutes a 90% majority to delete all. ~~~~ 29 June 2005 21:33 (UTC)

• Well, in case it doesn't yet -- Delete all. Uttaddmb 30 June 2005 05:01 (UTC)

• Delete all --Wetman 29 June 2005 21:55 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in a deletion review, if it does not; or below this section.