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 was keep. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly same rationale as the prod. Non notable game; no references in reliable sources establishing notability. It doesn't even pass WP:WEB. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not notable; references are anecdotal at best and not reliable and/or independent at worst. (I originally speedied, then PRODded this article.) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB. I browsed through the sources recommended by WikiProject Video games and the only thing out there is the (currently linked) interview at Gamasutra. Everything else is trivial or a forum post (or both). Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep in addition to the interview on Gamasutra (which admittedly doesn't help with reception) there's a full review on Jay is Games, there is a piece of some description on Play This Thing (which for some reason went down like yesterday, hope it is getting renewed :S), a small piece on Rock Paper Shotgun, small piece on indiegames - the weblog, part article on Big Download (AOL) and another nugget. The Jay is Games piece is user-submitted, but it was done so as part of a competition and has been vetted by 8 of the site's reviewers, no less, so should be fine. I would really like access to the Play This Thing source, another review would be helpful, but I think the other pieces wing it in regards to reliable non-trivial coverage in secondary sources (notability). Someoneanother 11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By "wing it," do you mean they don't qualify as reliable? I see very little in that list that does qualify. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean wing it in terms of volume of coverage. If they were all full-sized reviews for instance then the amount of coverage would be much higher. The return (phew) of Play This Thing has however changed that since it is indeed a proper review. I've been using Jay is Games as a source for a long time (they're a respected source within indie/casual gaming), and have used them on at least a couple of GAs. Rock Paper Shotgun is a site run by 4 experienced UK games journalists like Jim Rossignol and Kieron Gillen, appearances can be deceptive. Indiegames.com is part of the same group as Gamasutra, a very respected source of information on the industry, there are several other gaming sites under the same umbrella. Play This Thing is run by game developer Greg Costikyan (and indeed the post is by him), who is not only a relevant 'expert in the field' but has been quoted repeatedly, along with the site's deputy editor Patrick Dugan, in the gaming press on the issue of indie games. There's some very good sourcing here, it just doesn't look it. Someoneanother 22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) Someoneanother 11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm happy with the reliablility and significance of the coverage at Bigdownload and Play This Thing (self-published but the author, Greg Costikyan, looks qualified). The smaller pieces: Indiegames (UBM TechWeb) and Rock Paper Shotgun are checked off as a reliable sources at WP:VG/RS. I don't think there's been a concensus on the reliablility of Jayisgames, yet, but there's plenty here anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 19:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm, wasn't aware of the list at WP:VG/RS. Good thing to know about. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep – Looks like there's enough there to get past on notability. –MuZemike 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I personally would like to see this stay, obviously I'm biased being a long time member of the community, but nevertheless I have my arguments for it, the game has been referred to in the confirmed reliable source PC Gamer ([1]) and PC PowerPlay ([2]). --Zuriki (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)— Zuriki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• Strong Keep - This is a freaking sandbox game... There's not really too much that can be added to the article. What surprises me is that the game has been out for over a year and it DOESN'T have an article yet. 24.0.228.58 (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion. The project page is articles for discussion. The weight of the arguments are weighed, not the vote count, and that is not an argument, you don't explain why it should be kept at all, unlike a few others here that have given a valid reason; documentation in reliable sources. Now, I would withdraw, but per policy, I am not allowed to as delete votes still remain unstricken(and no, you cannot strike them yourself. If you do, that is refactoring another's comment against their permission and is strictly forbidden.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - There are many people that enjoy this game, and it seams to be very identifiable for the most part. People see pictures of this game plastered all over the far corners of the internet and go "Hey, thats the mine-thingy game right?". Notability is being Notable, not how many sources have noted it. If this article deserves to not exist JUST because some random guy from the New York Times has not yet written an story about it, than I do not beleive this is truly an encyclopedia. People come to Wikipedia to find out more information. Even if only a small amount of information is 'verifiable' at the time, then so be it. Leave it as is and build on it as more comes available. The point of articles here is to start on them, and improve on them as a community, everyone adding their share. Not for the article to be perfected the instant someone types it up, and if its not, to be deleted. Minecraft is already recognizable by many people, and many more will come in the future. A lot of whom are likely to come to Wikipedia to find out more information on it. I feel this article should be here for them. --Jaryth000 (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, notability is how many sources have noted it. We have to be able to verify what is written about a subject, and we do that through references to reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and assuming that "many more will come in the future" is ludicrous on its face. How do you know they will come? You don't, nor does anyone else. Notability of this game aside, your post exhibits a fundamental misunderstanding of how Wikipedia determines notability of any subject, video game or otherwise. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Very true sir! On all accounts! And I apologies. Still does not stop the fact that I think the article should remain. --Jaryth000 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As stated in the nom reason, the relevant policies are N(notability), V(verifiability), and WEB(webcontent, such as websites, games, etc.).

• WP:N - Significant third party sources which are independent of the subject, and the mention cannot be trivial, in that it can't be a few lines, the article itself needs to be about it.
• WP:V - Original research is not verifiable, as it is not documented in a well-known publication with a history and reputation for fact checking. For this reason, straight photos, videos, or tabloids cannot be used as sources. Photos can be modified, video can be faked, and tabloids don't always give the facts, rather, they tend to put 'spin' on stories, make accusations, etc. I've dealt with a few BLP(biographies of living persons) violations myself concerning this one because of tabloids. This is also the reason why Blogs can never be used as sources. No fact-checking present. No verifiability.
  • WP:RS - This one falls under WP:V. It defines what a reliable source is.
• WP:WEB - This one is rather short. I don't know it in and out, one can simply check the page to read it's contents, it isn't rather long. In short, if it has won a notable webby award, it qualifies.

I hope this helps things.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:01, 2 July 2010 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.