• MineSweeper3D (game) (wikipedia is not an advertising medium). Tristanb 06:43 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Exact same content is mirrored at MineSweeper3D. --Delirium 08:09 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Duplicate redirected. I see nothing wrong with the article. I wrote articles about games myself, such as Cuyo. --Eloquence 23:22 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • From his other contributions, it obvious this guy's just using wikipedia to sell his game. Less than 700 visitors had been to his site when i first visited. It's not an established game, and it's not a free game so people can learn more about the subject. There are other places for people to hawk their creations.
  • It is only one game, but there are thousands of programmers who write software, and others have written minesweeper 3d games. They don't all deserve a place in an encyclopedia. If a section is listed about 3d versions of minesweeper, then this site could be a link, along with Cyp's Java version (see Talk:Minesweeper_(game)). But it doesn't deserve it's own page, (or, i'd argue, a listing anywhere).
  • Sure the guy has a right to create the page, it's an open encyclopedia, but it doesn't mean it has to stay. He's treating wikipedia like a FFA site. Tristanb 01:14 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • I still don't see which specific Wikipedia policy is violated by that page. The description is probably accurate, the game obviously exists, looks fairly neat to me, so why not have an article about it? We have much more obscure subjects than that covered. --Eloquence
  • Well, maybe not, i'm not completely read in the policy :-) But i remember something about being encyclopedia-worthy (i've got to go soon so i can't find it). It's obscure. Haven't people written about their obscure band and had that deleted? What about the club that seemed to have only 4 members, but explained their customs/etc. I could write a fairly complete article about myself or our dog, but i don't think it should feature in an encyclopedia. What about the thousands of non-nude sites (although there's not many nowadays), do they all deserve a page? what about the thousands [of programs] on www.download.com? i don't think they do. Especially when i believe that all the guy is doing is trying to sell his silly game! Tristanb 01:46 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • Okay, i've said enough state my point, i'm not gonna be convinced otherwise, but that's my vote for deletion! :-) Tristanb 05:23 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)
  • I'd say transform this page into a page about Minesweeper variants, that lists the possible modifications to the rule (this games brings in a few independent ones), keep the link and maybe even a short description of the game (even though it doesn't strike me as too original, its ideas have been in the air for a while...) Maybe I'll do it, maybe not... --FvdP 19:43 18 Jul 2003 (UTC)
    • Here's something from the policy (even it was made today), the last paragraph of Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms Tristanb 01:57 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)
      • Eep! Better use Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The advertising stuff in Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms comes from there -- just to point out another bad reason for peacocking. -- ESP 04:14 19 Jul 2003 (UTC)

It might be deletable for being unimportant and hence unencyclopedic. Has it been played by more than, say, 20,000 people? How much of a cumulative impact has it had on the world compared to, say, Yoism?
Personally, I think it's mergable with Minesweeper, appropriately edited. Martin 10:12 23 Jul 2003 (UTC)