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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minicraft[edit]

Minicraft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

I dont think a small, free game created in a weekend with little content and gameplay deserves as much attention as its own page. If anything this should be a small section on Markus "Notch" Persson or Minecraft's page. (Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robotron:_2084#Remakes_and_sequels ) Thanks chaps. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 02:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The above is a rationale for deletion posted on the article's talk page by an IP user who attempted to nominate this page for deletion. I am completing the nomination on their behalf, but I am not expressing an opinion about the page at this time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as creator of article. This game actually has no direct relation to Minecraft, beyond having had the same creator make it. It has had significant coverage in a number of gaming news websites and periodicals. It is also practically guaranteed to have further coverage when the "sequel", MiniTale, comes out fairly soon. (I am still debating with myself on whether I should make MiniTale its own article when it comes out and have this article be a subsection there or something else. Of course, it all depends on the specific amount of coverage MiniTale gets. It might end up being a subsection in this article instead.) Silverseren^C 09:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the page is on a very topical subject and thus does not have longevity of the encyclopedic worthiness to distinguish it from indiscriminate adding of information, particularly in it's lack of depth and duration of coverage. Possible future developments are speculative, we could say that many things could become notable but what matters is if they are. --Dishcmds (talk) 10:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Tossing out policy links is not an argument, especially when you're using them incorrectly. The only close to correct statement is the final one. But, let's start from the beginning. A video game is not an event and is not subject to the Events notability guideline. There is no indiscriminate info in the article, as it does not fall under "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics", or "Excessive listings of statistics". The info in the article is specifically about the game, its background, its gameplay, and its reception in gaming media. And you used another erroneous link to Notability (events), which I already commented on, so skipping that. As for crystal balling, I was referring to what should be done with MiniTale when it comes out, but Minicraft already has significant coverage in gaming media, as expressed by the references in the article. Silverseren^C 10:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This article does fall under indiscriminate inclusion of non-notable topics. This game was created during an event and for an event, the competition. Hundreds of games have been created during this event and Persson has created several others for past events, but not those hundreds of games or his previous games or even the winners of the previous competitions have their own article pages. The game was made in one weekend and is comparable to thousands of existing java or flash games in it's depth of gameplay/content. Coverage of this competition is limited in depth and duration, as is coverage of the game. Crystal balling what coverage may be in the future doesn't justify an exception to notability requirements for the current coverage.--Dishcmds (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're saying thousands of flash games get coverage in gaming magazines and major gaming websites? If they do, then they should also have articles. The notability guideline for all articles is the WP:GNG, which this article passes with flying colors. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by depth of coverage. The sources discussed how the game was made, the gameplay within the game, and then also made comments on whether the game was good or not (critical reception). That's the information that all game articles have. This article currently meets the notability guidelines. Whether MiniTale will do the same will have to be seen, but Minicraft clearly currently meets the guidelines. And what the game was created for is irrelevant. Just because the game was created for a competition doesn't make the game an event itself. The competition is an event, not the games within it. And even the competition doesn't fall under what Wikipedia defines as an event, considering it is an ongoing thing. An event is an explosion, a shooting, a death, things like that. A competition doesn't really fall under the event rules. Silverseren^C 20:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Articles aren't deleted because of lack of longevity. Once notability is established, it's considered permanently notable (WP:NTEMP). BBC news, Wired news, PC Gamer, PC World are all major publications and have established notability. There seems to be enough content to validate a separate article from Markus Persson--Stvfetterly (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Clearly passes the general notability guideline and WP:V with flying colors. Just take a look at the extensive independent refs. Steven Walling • talk 19:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notable game by notable developer covered by the indie and open source community passes the GNG.  Marlith (Talk)  21:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes notability due to multiple non-trivial reliable sources. Merging into another article would mean losing content in order to balance the weight. Someoneanother 22:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Plenty of coverage in reliable, third party sources. It seems like this nomination was based more along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, not actual notabilibilty concerns. (No bad faith intended on my part.) Sergecross73 msg me 23:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - Easily passes WP:GNG and as stated above this does seem to be an "I don't like it therefore delete!" nomination. Barts1a | What did I actually do right? | What did I do wrong this time? 23:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How this article is "notable" I'll never understand. At best it should be deleted, at worst merged into notch's article. --The Lone Bard (talk) 17:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If theres a rule for "I dont like this delete it." why is there there no rule against "I like this keep it forever and give it its own page"? --206.248.165.19 (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There is. WP:ILIKEIT. Silverseren^C 21:05, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True but I don't think that this is the case here because the people arguing to keep it here are stating that that article meets WP:N not because they think then game is fun/cool/amazing.--70.24.207.225 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I would agree with you. :P I was just responding to the question on whether there was an opposite rule. Silverseren^C 08:50, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that you're as biased as they are. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep Being a small game doesn't stop it being notable, it's well sourced too. Wagner ^u t c 17:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Mojang. The content from this article would significantly improve the coverage of the company's history. Jarble (talk) 17:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minicraft isn't Mojang's game. It was made as a personal project by Persson for a Ludum Dare, unrelated to Mojang. Wagner ^u t c 18:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Markus Persson, per the above. This is where his other Ludum Dare entries are, and I agree with Dishmcds' statement regarding the longevity of the coverage. Also, I don't think it passes WP:GNG because the sources imply this was notable for about one day. If MiniTale is released and fits the criteria for notability, then merge this into MiniTale instead. Cheeftun (talk) 20:09, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• It has clearly been notable for more than one day, as the sources continue for more than one day, even up to as recently as two days ago (and I could probably find one for today as well). Remember, for now, sources about MiniTale are also about this article. Once MiniTale comes out and it gets coverage, this article will be moved, so we're discussing a one and the same game. Silverseren^C 21:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Having searched on Google News, I see only two news articles across multiple sites: articles reporting on Notch entering Ludum Dare and describing Minicraft, and articles reporting on Notch's intent to spin it off into MiniTale. These strike me as reasons as to why MiniTale may be notable enough for its own article in the future, not why Minicraft requires differentiation from Notch's other Ludum Dare entries. Also, the sources I've read do not distinguish it from his other entries on merit, which, again, indicates that Minicraft should remain in the list of Notch's Ludum Dare entries unless and until MiniTale is notable enough for its own article. If MiniTale itself had more coverage, I would suggest moving it now, but as you mentioned earlier, MiniTale's notability at the moment (outside of the announcement) is speculative at best. Cheeftun (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• So you're essentially saying that if reviews of a game come out within the same time period after a game is produced, since that counts as one time period, the game is non-notable? That's not how things work and that's not what notability is. Notability is the fact that so many different gaming magazines and news websites wrote an article reviewing Minicraft, regardless of how short a time period it was that they all did it in. Silverseren^C 21:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Point me to a legitimate video gaming review site that has done an honest review of Minicraft in the same style and markup that they would for any other video game and accept you. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you're talking about a review with a rating, there's not going to be one for a game that was made for free. MiniTale will probably get some, if Notch has it cost something, but free games don't get normal reviews, they get news coverage, like this one has. Another example of a free flash game is Robot Unicorn Attack. It didn't get ratings because it's free, but it got tons of news coverage. Silverseren^C 00:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a review is a numerical rating and Minicraft is culturally as significant as Robot Unicorn Attack.--206.248.165.19 (talk) 01:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I don't know if that's supposed to be a negative comment about Minicraft or not, but either way, these types of games don't get ratings from gaming periodicals, they just get coverage, much like any other indie type game. So I don't understand what kind of point you're trying to make. Silverseren^C 01:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Minicraft was just unofficially ported to the Android yesterday, garnering a number of new news articles on the game. Continued coverage, there you go. Silverseren^C 12:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Of all the small-scale games created in 2011, I would have to say Minicraft received by far the most publicity, considering the author and circumstances of its origin. The size of the game might be questionable, but it made enough of an impact that it should be readily available on Wikipedia. DarthBotto _talk•cont 08:05, 06 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who decides "impact"? Just because an website reposts information from a tweet means something is important? Is this Wikipedia or CWCki? --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Also, cool opinions bro. --206.248.165.19 (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC) — 206.248.165.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Keep. I'd say WP:1EVENT should have been applicable. However, Wikipedia's guidelines are biased towards content reliably sourced, and reliable sources in this case are biased to cover Persson's game instead of 890 other games from the competition. It certainly seems unfair and systematic bias is a big problem, but we ought not compromise Wikipedia principles. The content is verifiable and reliably sourced to satisfy WP:GNG at is simplest form. Also, I think there's too much sourced content to merge, so an independent article is fine. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:09, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This seems to be a case of inherited notability, as the game is not really of much significance in itself outside of it's creator. On that basis the article should be merged with it's source of notability, Notch himself.62.49.19.234 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reliable sources given would indicate it is notable on its own. Whether it is because Notch is notable or not (inherited notability) is not a factor when addressing WP:GNG. It's a silly case this time in real world terms, but almost clear cut in Wikipedia notability terms. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:04, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the topic of this article is actively in development. As noted above, the state of notability may change after MiniTale is released, which may be quite soon. As a comment before realizing this I was going to suggest Merging with Minecraft which is the only article large and developed enough to receive this article without major problems, and Minicraft is most related to Minecraft among those articles.Theinactivist (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – Plenty of reliable sources that has established independent notability here. I'm not sure whether merging would be useful in this situation, as Someone another mentioned above. --MuZemike 20:12, 9 January 2012 (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.