Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LexiconRPG

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. (The anonymous and very new votes were, unfortunately, steeply discounted.)

LexiconRPG
non-notable game DCEdwards1966 02:43, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)


 * KEEP. I have posted my rebuttal to various allegations on the discussion sub-page. --BenWilson 04:08, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't the place to gain press for your game. DCEdwards1966 04:36, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not my game, see rebuttal. --BenWilson 19:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a well-written article, about what appears to be a real game, in a genre I've never even heard of before.  I'm curious, what about this article made you think it should be deleted?  I suppose it's possible vanity as suggested above, but surely not "non-notable"  RoySmith 04:39, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, utterly non-notable. If someday it becomes notable, someone else will make the article for you. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:49, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a unique way of developing roleplaying environments, a sort of a metagame. It's an interesting approach, and certainly isn't an advertisement or an attempt at gaining press.  There are certainly other entries that one could claim that for far more than this. (AaronClausen) 5:41, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Supposed "User: AaronClauser" is really anon User:64.141.6.8 . Please don't try to game the voting.  RickK 05:50, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * You're not insinuating that's me, are you? If so, you are mistaken. My IP is 68.51.35.56. If you check the LexiconRPG history page, you'll see where I made an edit earlier today and had been logged out. BenWilson 06:01, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Lexicon RPG is still a novel concept, so there aren't many games out there". Delete until they're notable.  RickK 05:48, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Not notable. And could we take the longwinded comments to a talk page or below the vote or something? --fvw *  18:12, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * (Moved verbosity)--BenWilson 19:04, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks. --fvw *  23:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Keep, It doesn't adequately fall within the deletion criteria. It's a good game. User:Joyce
 * Supposed "User: Joyce" is anon User:128.221.197.129. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 21:00, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * (Does that diminish the person's vote? Because, i'm sure not in the 128.*.*.* Domain.)--BenWilson 23:14, Jan 5, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. First of all faking a signature shows the vote wasn't made in good faith, and secondly anonymous editors cannot vote. --fvw *  23:40, 2005 Jan 5 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, where are the rules for voting listed?
 * See here for a recent debate. Rossami summed it up quite nicely at Votes for deletion/Mr. Pants: "New users should be aware that votes by anonymous and very new accounts are generally very steeply discounted during these discussions. We have had significant problems in the past with abuse of the voting process and attempts to bias the outcome by users creating sockpuppets. Hard facts which add to the discussion are appreciated. Opinions and qualitative judgments are likely to be ignored." &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately we've also had a great deal of trouble with open proxies. An IP test isn't very meaningful when lists of literally hundreds are easily available.  Dyanmic IPs are problematic also, though less so.  Furthermore, it takes a developer to check the IP of a logged-in user, and the time they have to spend on non-development tasks is very, very limited. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 12:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not wanting to drag this into a long technical discussion (I also truncated my earlier comment). However, since wikipedia uses PHP, you should know that a PHP variable holds the IP of the visitor. That's how the site knows your IP when you're not logged in. Therefore, it would be easy to include both user ID and IP in the history. That would at least mitigate the "unable to get IP" issue. As for Dynamic IP, at least the different IPs would be w/n the same domain. But, while CommieCast has dynamic IPs, I've had the same IP for the past 21 months. Can't say much about "open proxies." At least this is educational.
 * Delete. GRider\talk 23:22, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see anything in the deletion criteria to justify a delete. --Ravenx99 02:42, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 05:21, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. User:TKurtBond
 * User's first edit. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 13:32, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely non-notable except by one person and a bunch of sockpuppets. DreamGuy 22:09, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppets? That's a load of bull. You'd think if I were using sock puppets I'd have had more votes. I take that as an insult. --BenWilson 23:25, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete unless article establishes notability. Tuf-Kat 00:17, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable except to author and sockpuppets. Jayjg  |  (Talk)  01:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Xezbeth  06:44, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Abusive, and pathetically non-notable. Death to sockpuppets! --AmeenDausha 20:25, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minor point. I had somebody privately inform me that it is more commonly called "Lexicon Game" as opposed to Lexicon RPG. When googling on that criteria, there are more accurate hits. Also, I have been told that googling "Lexicon Neel" is also an effective way of finding Lexicon pages. So, earlier assessments from a google on variations of Lexicon RPG are a bit skewed. Perhaps, also, this should be recategorized from RPG to games, or maybe wiki-games? --BenWilson 04:19, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

Please note that Ben Wilson has now created LexiconGame, a fork of this article, which I have listed for VfD below. RickK 23:40, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC) I did so only because that is a more appropriate name than LexiconRPG, as I have been told by several people. Not to circumvent the process. If this page had been deleted, I would have moved for that one to be immediately deleted as well. ~
 * Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:45, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Different. Interesting.  Completely unknown.  Delete.  hfool/Roast me 01:32, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. Indrian 04:09, Jan 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * Del. NN. --Jerzy(t) 04:06, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.