Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Steere


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 07:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Mark Steere
Vanity article by non-notable game inventor. (I think we can assume that PearlMcPurry is a sockpuppet for Mark Steere and MarkSteere.) I always think that award winning tends to be a synonym for dubious notability. -- RHaworth 05:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC) In this case, "award winning" is not a synonym for "dubious notability." It simply means what it says: award winning. I won the extremely prestigious Mensa Select award for Quadrature as can be verified by visiting http://mindgames.us.mensa.org/participant/past_winners.php and selecting the year 1993. I also recently won the 2006 Parents' Choice award, as can be verified by visiting http://www.parents-choice.org/get_direct_level.cfm?cat=c_gam&award=AW&awdyr=2006&awdse=a&product_code=p_toy. These are only two of the awards I've won for game inventing over the years. Every statement in the Mark Steere article can be verified. All of my games were programmed for online play by Aaron Dalton, proprietor of Super Duper Games as can be verified at http://superdupergames.org/main.html?page=about where all of my games are listed as well as http://wiki.superdupergames.org/ in "The Players” section under Mark Steere. A number of other programmers have also elected to program my games over the years of their own volition and at their own expense including Richard Rognlie of Gamerz.net, and Mark Okun of SetupGroup.com.  All of their work can be easily located and verified.  Innumerable articles, commentaries, and reviews on my games have been written in a number of languages including English, German, and Italian. The slightest investigative effort will produce prodigious evidence that I am in fact a world renowned game inventor.
 * Delete per WP:BIO. Only 109 relevant Google results . Possibly also userfy as well--TBC TaLk?!? 05:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you always manipulate the truth? I get over 500 Google results when I search EITHER for "Mark Steere" and "game" OR "Mark Steere" and "designer"! Why should such a seach not be as "relevant" as your search???
 * Userfy and delete, fails WP:VAIN and WP:BIO. --Coredesat talk 07:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I userfied it already: here but he blanked the page. -- RHaworth 08:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Nothing in the Mark Steere article promotes my notoriety. Every sentence in the article is a simple statement of a well known fact. There are hundreds of relevant links relating to “Mark Steere” and all of my games in every search engine. There are no links in the Mark Steere article whatsoever. Every effort was made on the part of Pearl McPurry, the author of the Mark Steere article, to comply with the standards of Wikipedia.

I understand the detractors’ desire to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. But in my case I am clearly notable (with regard to game inventing), verifiable, and non-self promoting. If the Mark Steere article does actually violate any of the Wikipedia standards, please let me know, and I will make an immediate correction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom. Fails WP:VAIN.  Tevildo 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy as this is an apparent violation of WP:VAIN.--Isotope23 13:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the sources cited in the Mark Steere article as well as here in the deletion article are credible, neutral, and independent. I have read the entire Vain article very carefully and cannot find any indication of even the slightest infraction of any Wikipedia policies therein. Likewise the Mark Steere article satisfies the very first listed requirement in the Bio/Notability article - “a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field.” I am also a “published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work.”

There have been two citings of “Bio” and three citings of “Vain” by four enthusiastic members of the Wikipedia police club, yet none of them offers specific suggestions of how the Mark Steere article violates either the Bio or the Vain policies. A very thorough review of both the Bio and Vain policies only confirms that the Mark Steere article goes beyond the call of duty in complying with both.
 * Comment can you source the statement "published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work..."? You make a stronger case if you provide evidence.  Also, what exactly in the article constitutes "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..."?  The awards from  Mensa and Parent's Choice?  Beyond that, calling editors who have rendered opinions you disagree with "four enthusiastic members of the Wikipedia police club" is rather un-WP:CIVIL and personally speaking it doesn't really make me want to go out of my way to reconsider my opinion.  I'm sure you know the old saying about honey and vinegar.--Isotope23 18:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

- Ralf Gering 20:22, 28 June 2006 (Central European Time)
 * A Comment from Europe Mark Steere is a very important game inventor. The reviews of his games at BoardGameGeek were viewed hundred, if not thousands of times, thus mirroring his reputation in the gaming community. Most of his games can be played online. I would, however, recommend to make the article a little bit more neutral (the photo should be much smaller) and to add some information such as his date of birth, his profession, links & references and so on. BTW, I'm not a "sockpuppet", but Ralf Gering, the author of many articles published in the Canadian Abstract Games Magazine.


 *  Rebuttal First, thank you Ralf for your kind support. Isotope23, by “Wikipedia police” I was referring to the knee jerk group pounce on the latest biographical article, accompanied by rallying cries of “Vain” and “Bio.”  Sure, I’d be happy to provide sources.  But don’t you think that as the wielder of accusations that you bear some responsibility for citing specific instances of exactly *how* the rules were violated?  Don’t you think you should research your own allegations and provide some sort of foundation?  I combed the Vain and Bio articles three times in search of any remote basis for your rejection of the Mark Steere article and found absolutely nothing.  On the contrary, the more I studied the articles the more they tended to justify and even call for such articles as the Mark Steere article.

Sources: Rule sheets for all of my games, authored by me, are published on BoardGameGeek.com, the definitive resource for board games. All submissions to Board Game Geek go through an approval process and are published at the discretion of the proprietors. Here is a link: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/designer/2321. Here are a couple of reviews for you: First a link to an Italian magazine with a description and review of my game Byte which appears in the last section: http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/boardgamevariant/fda/FdA30.pdf. Here is a recent review of my game Cephalopod: http://www.thedicetower.com/thedicetower/index.php?page=Cephalopod. Another article you might find interesting is a description of my game Tanbo, published here on Wikipedia by Steve Bordelon in June 2003: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanbo. I have no connection with Steve Bordelon and in fact had never heard of him before seeing his Wikipedia article on Tanbo. I think this goes to the “widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record” since I invented Tanbo back in 1993. Besides Mensa and Parents’ Choice I also received the Games Magazine Games 100 award for Quadrature in 1993.

This is all just the tip of the iceberg. I can provide many more game review sources, if called upon to do so. My games have earned a huge amount of recognition in the games community over the years. I have unequivocally met the Wikipedia requirement of being a “published author, [who has] received multiple independent reviews of or awards for [my] work.” Many times over.

Now back to your part, Isotope23. Show me where the Mark Steere article falls short of *any* of the Wikipedia standards.
 * Comment first off, WP:BIO & WP:VAIN are guidelines, not rules. I can only speak for myself, but authoring rules sheets doesn't really meet my definition of "published author", though you are free to disagree.  The other guideline you referenced from WP:BIO "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..." is very open to interpretation.  I'm not trying to be personally offensive to you, but I don't see anything that meets that definition.  None of your games have been around long enough to have achieved the status of "enduring historical record" in my opinion.  Concerning WP:VAIN... I've struck that above because the guideline I meant to reference was WP:AUTO, citing WP:VAIN was a mistake on my part.  Regardless, the only real claim I see towards WP:BIO is if "author" is carried over to the authorship of the game as a whole.  I can't think of any similar case off the top of my head, then again I've never seen a board game creator article here before.  I'm still mulling over if that meets the author definition.--Isotope23 23:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Authorship Authorship here refers to my authoring the original rule sheets. The games were invented.  The rules were authored.  Tanbo never won any awards but it is my most famous game now, 13 years after I invented it.  If you ask any connoisseur of abstract games about Tanbo, he will definitely be familiar with it and will most likely have played it a couple of times.  I don't see how Tanbo could be viewed as not being "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in their specific field...".  There are many much more famous game designers than me.  Their work is instantly lauded upon release.  Then, in many cases, a few months later you see the complaints about the aimless gameplay and the increasing frequency of draws.  These games won't be around forever.  Tanbo will.
 * Comment based on your statements above I don't see you meeting WP:BIO because I do not consider you to meet the criteria as an author based on the authorship of rules sheet. As for Tanbo, trying to construe the future status of the game as meeting "...part of the enduring historical record in their specific field..." violates the Wikipedia policy WP:NOT.  It is too early to say if it has historical importance.  I still favor a userfy over a simple delete because it allows you to retain the information on your userpage in case you meet WP:BIO at some point in the future.--Isotope23 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not construing. The field of modern abstract game invention has barely existed until recently.  There was Reversi a couple hundred years ago, and there were Hex and Y in the 1950's.  The field has only become highly active in the past couple of decades to the point where there are now hundreds if not thousands of abstract games.  The vast majority of them are unheard of and never played.  For a game like Tanbo to steadily grow in popularity with virtually no promotion over a period of 13 years indicates an outstanding game with endurance.  I don't know what your criteria for endurance is, but I personally don't know of any abstract games older than 55 years with known inventors.  Part of Tanbo's success, and what I believe will be continued success, is due to its use of generic equipment: a Go board and Go stones.  Every game store has Go sets.  It's the most popular game in China and Japan.  As long as the very simple concept of Tanbo continues to spread by word of mouth, and as long as Go sets are available, Tanbo will be played.
 * I'm not convinced, and here I think we will simply have to agree to disagree. Good luck with your games though.--Isotope23 19:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unless the claims are sourced in the article. I now believe he's notable, but there's no WP:Verifiable assertion of notability in the article. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 21:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Claims are now sourced in the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.121.222.198 (talk • contribs) 22:48, June 28, 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Industrial-strength vanity, peacock language, inflated claims (I mean, "the extremely prestigious Mensa Select award"? Being selected as one of among the top 100 games for one year, 13 years ago? Please). I'm sure there are board-game designers who deserve articles (I'm told there are some kick-ass German designers), but this doesn't make the cut, no matter the volume of citations and wikilawyering. --Calton | Talk 01:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do NOT make uncivil remarks in your comments Calton. TruthCrusader 12:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Please maintain some attachment to reality. Start by buying a dictionary. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with his word use? Why the bizarre critiques of flawless diction and flawless grammar?


 * Not Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate. I'm just claiming to meet the requirements of "notable" as specifically defined in the Wikipedia documentation. In particular I have clearly met the requirements of being published, receiving multiple awards and multiple independent reviews.  I looked at your wiki page, Calton, with your Sockpuppet IP list and your motto "It's clean-up duty, mopping up after the dishonest, incompetent, and fanatical. Can't imagine why you'd have a problem with that."  I don't have a problem with that.  I'm just wondering if you are somehow exempt from the "mopping up" that by your own stardards you so abundantly qualify for.
 * Not Claiming to be a Nobel Laureate. Dot's nice, but what part of my  I'm sure there are board-game designers who deserve articles leads you to believe that that's my standard? As far as I'm concerned, ordinary notability standards excludes you, no matter how much you whinge about the rules and overload your comments with peacock language and question-begging adjectives. Your game got some minor attention. You? Not so much.
 * I don't have a problem with that I beg to differ, as your ludicrous overreaction of loghorrea to any and all contradiction of your self-proclaimed genius demonstrates.
 * I'm just wondering if you are somehow exempt from the "mopping up" that by your own stardards you so abundantly qualify for. Is there an English translation of that bit of passive-aggressive rhetoric available? It seems to be grammatically (though not orthographically) correct, but then, so does "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" -- with which your sentence seems to share roughly the same information content. --Calton | Talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like I touched a nerve, as evidenced by your side stepping grammatical analysis. [8D)
 * Based on that last clause, I'm thinking you might want to look up psychological projection. So yes, it was empty handwaving, then. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would urge Mr Steere to moderate his responses to the issues raised here, and refrain from personal attacks on Calton or any other editor.  Nobody would object if Mr Steere were to exhibit his achievements on his user page, as Calton does on his.  The issue is whether or not his achievements are sufficiently notable to entitle him to an article in the main namespace.  I myself am an award-winning engineer (British Aerospace Engineering Excellence Award, 1989), but I would not for one second regard that, of itself, sufficient to make me notable according to WP:BIO.  Having won a MENSA award is indeed something to be proud of, but, in my opinion and in the opinion of others here, it's not enough to establish notability. Tevildo 15:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Userfy if possible --Starionwolf 04:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Any particular reason, Starionwolf?This is supposed to be a debate, not a run-on list of "me toos." — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs) 05:03, June 29, 2006
 * Have you thought about, I dunno, putting a cork in it and letting the actual Wikipedia editors come to a decision? --Calton | Talk 05:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What better advice to follow than your own? I thought we talked about that.
 * How many times do you have to be warned about your uncivil remrks Calton? TruthCrusader 12:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  I thought we talked about that "We" haven't talked about anything. YOU, on the other hand, have been leaving a string of inane and fact-free drivelings in my wake. It's not just that you're a wikistalker that annoys me, it's that you're not a very competent wikistalker. --Calton | Talk 08:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:AUTO. Percy Snoodle 08:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If the American Mensa Award isn't listed here, then a "winner" has to be doubly nn. --Richhoncho 16:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete with the added comment that we should not be attacking new users who happen to fail our notability guidelines. Yamaguchi先生 08:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, another "me too." Wikipedia has a *huge* number of members.  I'm sure the Mark Steere article was not the first to trigger a run on list of mostly negative, "me toos."  If you think the article should be deleted, state your case.  Inane references to "Bio" and "Vain" don't constitute arguments.  I seriously doubt if the powers that be are even remotely impressed by the addition of one more zero foundation "me too."


 * Keep. The multiple awards seem legit, and his games seem popular enough in the abstract games community to have attracted multiple independent programmers to write them up as software.  His games seem more notable than he is himself, but he does indeed seem to be the author of multiple notable award-winning games. [Note: I'm not endorsing his prickliness here; just his notability.] -- Victor Lighthill 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Sorry about the prickliness.  I don't have a real sugary personality, and I generally make my feelings known - positive or negative.  This whole thing was started by someone in whose mind "award winning" equates to "non-notability."  I found that obnoxious.  Even less impressive was the migratory herd of bleating metooers.  (I don't fault them for their difference of opinion, but *make your case*).  I understand that my games are well known while I am not.  But isn't that the point of encyclopedias?  If you want to know the history of peanut butter, you look it up in Wikipedia, and you find that it has a long and varied history, having nothing to do with George Washington Carver.


 * Delete, Calton really sums this up quite nicely. RFerreira 03:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your user page reveals your eminence in the wiki search-and-destroy crusade. How pitiful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs).
 * Mark, kindly allow me to remind you of the no personal attacks policy. Percy Snoodle 11:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry. Let me rephrase that:  I genuinely feel sorry for people whose lives are so empty that they find purpose in the dogged pursuit of errant wikipedians. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MarkSteere (talk • contribs).
 * It should also be pointed out that the question of whether User:MarkSteere should be blocked is independant of whether the article Mark Steere should be deleted. There are some exceptions, but the article should stand or fall on its own merits.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * How long does it generally take for the real editors to get around to reviewing the article in question? This is all growing rather tiresome.  To be honest, I no longer care if the article makes the cut.  It won't have a significant impact on my life either way.
 * Observations. I've learned a few things about Wikipedia through this "Articles for deletion" process. There is a subset of the community that monitors and attempts to weed out articles of questionable importance.  Even though it's directed at me in this case, I view this process as a good thing.  It keeps Wikipedia from being overrun with junk which would make it difficult to access the useful information.  I also like the group response against personal attacks.  It tends to squelch the escalation of counter attacks and flame wars which can essentially sabotage a forum.  What I don't like about the process is that it seems to foster a small percentage of "bad apples" who are so horribly inadequate that they've made a career out of hunting down and attempting to minimize the accomplishments of others.  There's probably a word for them here, like "wikitaliban" or something.  I don't know what can be done about them.  Maybe place a limit on how frequently one can recommend articles for deletion.


 * 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.