The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Since it has no edits since August, I'll mark it "historical" for now, but of course anyone who wants to revive it and draw in new interest is free to remove such a tag. (Radiant) 09:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiRPG[edit]

I probably wouldn't have a problem with this if it was both well run and active. There haven't been any edits since August, though, and what's currently on there looks more like a sandbox than a serious game. To boot, it's in Wikipedia namespace, which makes it look official. --Wolf530 (talk) 06:19, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep no issues with this one, as it not only promotes collaboration but does so in an interesting way. Apples and oranges with the other game MfDs. -- Ned Scott 06:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how the "other game MfDs" are relevant here? --Wolf530 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why else would you nominate to delete it? Being in the Wikipedia namespace isn't a problem, and being inactive isn't a problem (slap one of those historical templates on it or something). With all the recent MfDs, how can this just be a coincidence? -- Ned Scott 07:33, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my original nomination? Have you actually seen the contribution I've made to the other discussions? I am in favor of keeping games corralled in one area -- Esperanza. However, I don't believe that we need to keep games around that are completely inactive and look like a glorified sandbox. We already have one of those. --Wolf530 (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Oooo! A new game I can get into! Seems like it's doing no harm to the 'pedia & is enforcing a fun way of getting edits made. Spawn Man 10:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - It seems to me personally that this sort of thing might really appeal to the editors who work on the role playing games. Also, please note the recent activity on the page. If anyone here works with the games projects, maybe you could call their attention to this page too. Badbilltucker 20:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I'm strongly in favor of removing the games that don't contribute to the 'pedia, this one has some promise. As to it being in Wikipedia namespace, where else? Maybe the Esperanza folks can put their energy into turning this into a well-run, active page since it looks like their game pages are going to be deleted. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or deprecate, not what we're here for. I could perhaps support userfication, except that Kelly Coin Guy seems to have left Wikipedia for the most part (one edit in recent months, though I did ping his talk page), and it's got almost no participation in the last year, before this MFD went up. -- nae'blis 21:36, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this isn't what Wikipedia is for. If you want to play games, do it elsewhere – Gurch 16:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This "game" is an activity designed to improve articles.. It's not at all like the chess or hangman games. We are here to improve articles, so... not sure where you are going with that. -- Ned Scott 21:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - encourages helpful editing. Archive if it remains inactive for a couple more months. --Gray Porpoise^{What have I done‽} 21:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I was recruited by someone else a while back to run this, but nothing ever came of it. Apperently, a simmiliar game on a non-en Wikipedia is a very big thing... I think it was called something like Wikifaktori... But players didn't come over the the en side. If someone else wants to run with it, it could still work--Rayc 00:10, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep can be tagged as historical if it remains inactive. Doesn't violate WP:NOT as its goal is to improve the encyclopedia even if the way it does that seems strange to some. Eluchil404 08:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eluchi †he Bread 00:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Keep per user:Samuelgames It need to keep, this a only one wikipedia rpg game — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelgames (talk • contribs)
• Strongly Keep per user:Samuelgames --Bill.matthews 02:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: First Samuelgames leaves a Strong Keep per himself in an unsigned post with no other previous posts or rationale provided, then Bill.matthews says strong keep per Samuelgames. These are odd votes, making me wonder if they are recruited votes—certainly I don't get the feeling that either one read this MfD and then posted their comment—looks like copy-paste to me. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 02:57, 14 November 2006 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.