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 deleted (redirects can be created later). Materialscientist (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minecraft clone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not prove notability and is not covered by reliable sources. "Minecraft clones" aren't notable and Terraria isn't a Minecraft clone... Anarchyte 10:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte 10:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redirect to Minecraft#Popular culture and social media, which has some mention of notable "clones". There are many hits in WP:VG/RS, but all are about some other game(s) being compared to Minecraft and called "clones". In other words, the topic does not pass WP:GNG with multiple in-depth sources, where the topic if the subject of the sources. Closest is something like [1]. There are definitely some good sources for material in the main article, but not enough content for a WP:SPLIT. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete (CSD A10) and redirect — There are "Minecraft clones" out there which may have or achieve WP:NOTABILITY, but I doubt that there is currently enough depth to the topic to justify its own article. Any good content on the topic should first be developed as a sub-section of the main Minecraft article (there is already some content there), which could later be split off into a standalone article if it proves to be a sufficiently large topic. So, speedy A10 on the basis of duplication, and agree on failure to credibly establish WP:NOTABILITY for the article, as currently written. Talk:Minecraft is the correct place to discuss future development and expansion of this sub-topic, and the sub-topic is certainly suitable for inclusion in the main article (subject to normal content guidelines). --Murph9000 (talk) 13:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - better dealt with in the main article. Artw (talk) 15:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Redirect, perfectly good redirect that shouldn't just be deleted.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Minecraft or Survival game. It's a legit search term, but we don't have a body of information as compared to GTA clone. --MASEM (t) 17:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2016 (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.