Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexulous

:{{la|Lexulous}} ([{{fullurl:Lexulous|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lexulous}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

game is non-notable. the lawsuit was dropped. there is no more media attention on this commercial venture; WP doesn't need to advertise for them.Wikipedian06 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:KEEP You're kidding, right? Hundreds of articles about the game; it's impact on Facebook and Facebook aplications; what it meant for online creative copyrights for existing games, whether the concept of "game" could even BE patented; fans very vocal fallout with Hasbro; The Agarwalla brothers lawsuits; Wordscraper still has 180k users... --Knulclunk (talk) 06:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Snow keep the article about this ridiculously notable and significant game.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::: This game was never copyright-legal to begin with, and there isn't much to note. It's just a poor excuse to advertise this game. Wikipedian06 (talk) 08:39, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:::: Whether or not it was legal is not relevant. Wikipedia is only concerned with whether it's verifiable, has reliable sources, is notable, etc. That's why we have articles about hoaxes and criminals.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Keep -- of course it's notable -- both as a game that's a significant part of social networking, just, you know, like an on-line multiply edited encyclopedia, and as a very significant element of internet commercial history. Nightspore (talk) 11:07, 25 March 2009 (UTC)nightspore

:Keep The only reason multiple reliable sources could be thrown out if they're part of a short news burst in which publications take over each other's news reports. That's obviously not the case here. It was in the news for a period of at least 8 months. The fact the lawsuit was dropped and the thing isn't in the news anymore isn't relevant. notability is not temporary. There is a difference between writing about a commercial venture and advertising it. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:47, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:Keep - might not be notable if it was just invented today and Scrabulous had never existed, but history makes it notable, particularly in the context of intellectual-property issues. (Though I have to say, and I appreciate this isn't the place to say it, that IMHO it would make more sense for Lexulous to re-direct to Scrabulous rather than vice-versa.) Barnabypage (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:KEEP - relevant to the history of social networking for several reasons, including being a well known showcase for issues with copyright and being a a useful case study for those studying economic development in the developing world. --Steve Foerster (talk) 14:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

:: A what??? Who cares abouy that muck? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.69.58.53 (talk) 16:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

:KEEP - An very notable application for various reasons, including copyright/trademark, social networking, etc. I agree with the above sentiment that it should be a redirect to Scrabulous and not the other way 'round. PrePressChris (talk) 17:58, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Without the law case, one might have a possible case for deletion. However, the legal history of this is notable, as demonstrated by the amount of references available - from reliable sources such as the BBC, the Telegraph and the Wall Street Journal, strong sources that don't turn up too often in video game articles. There's no denying the need for cleanup—far too much proseline and the like—but notability is established, and as already commented, notability is not temporary. -- Sabre (talk) 18:26, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::: But what exactly did this incident contribute to the modern legal system? A court decision was never made -- if this actually went to court and there were a decision (see Pirate Bay trial), it might be relevant. But this case was resolved privately and Hasbro later dropped the charges. In other words, it's not noteworthy. It's just the same as every other legal threat that ended in an amicable settlement. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::: According to Google News, there are about 4000 news articles discussing Obama's dog. There are tens of thousands of tabloid articles discussing what so-and-so celebrity is wearing at the current moment. Does that make any of this noteworthy material for Wikipedia? Extensive press coverage isn't necessarily indicative of notability. Wikipedian06 (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

::::I'd hardly compare an article by the [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119222790761657777.html Wall Street Journal], which is focused on the game far more than any of the legal stuff, to the level of tabloid rubbish. Our notability guidelines, which extend from WP:V, do not require something to have been of importance, merely covered in sources independent and reliable. One might well be able to write an article on Obama's dog, but common sense would say such information would belong in the articles on Obama and his family (we've got articles for Putin's dog and Hitler's dog... but that's besides the point). -- Sabre (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

: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.