564:- 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 Knowledge (XXG) 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 Knowledge (XXG) to find out more information on it. I feel this article should be here for them. --
535:. 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
646:- 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
592:, 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 Knowledge (XXG) determines notability of any subject, video game or otherwise. -
300:. 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
336:
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
399:- 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
353:(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.
460:- 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
163:
510:- 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.
664:- 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.
337:
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
640:- 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.
118:
650:
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.
157:
349:, 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
376:
252:
228:
Not notable; references are anecdotal at best and not reliable and/or independent at worst. (I originally speedied, then PRODded this article.) -
123:
56:
500:
255:
and the only thing out there is the (currently linked) interview at
Gamasutra. Everything else is trivial or a forum post (or both).
17:
511:
91:
86:
608:
Very true sir! On all accounts! And I apologies. Still does not stop the fact that I think the article should remain. --
496:
178:
95:
699:
36:
145:
285:
78:
380:
588:
what is written about a subject, and we do that through references to reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG) is not a
403:. I don't think there's been a concensus on the reliablility of Jayisgames, yet, but there's plenty here anyway.
387:
357:
308:
698:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
297:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
320:
By "wing it," do you mean they don't qualify as reliable? I see very little in that list that does qualify. -
289:
515:
139:
676:
546:
408:
213:
293:
492:
479:
135:
598:
431:
384:
354:
326:
305:
260:
234:
50:
682:
617:
603:
589:
573:
552:
519:
483:
452:
436:
412:
390:
360:
331:
311:
264:
239:
219:
60:
613:
569:
272:
in addition to the interview on
Gamasutra (which admittedly doesn't help with reception) there's a
171:
284:(which for some reason went down like yesterday, hope it is getting renewed :S), a small piece on
488:
475:
472:
449:
185:
422:
400:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
671:
541:
404:
208:
661:
647:
631:
248:
203:
593:
426:
321:
256:
229:
653:
301:
195:
609:
565:
350:
273:
151:
82:
643:
637:
627:
623:
199:
342:
338:
465:
468:
277:
112:
346:
345:, appearances can be deceptive. Indiegames.com is part of the same group as
74:
66:
461:
194:
Mostly same rationale as the prod. Non notable game; no references in
281:
656:- This one falls under WP:V. It defines what a reliable source is.
692:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
448:– Looks like there's enough there to get past on notability. –
528:
AfD is not a vote. It is a discussion. The project page is
304:
non-trivial coverage in secondary sources (notability).
622:
As stated in the nom reason, the relevant policies are
108:
104:
100:
584:
how many sources have noted it. We have to be able to
170:
184:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
702:). No further edits should be made to this page.
377:list of video game related deletion discussions
632:WEB(webcontent, such as websites, games, etc.)
253:sources recommended by WikiProject Video games
8:
280:, there is a piece of some description on
375:: This debate has been included in the
290:small piece on indiegames - the weblog
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
421:Hmmmm, wasn't aware of the list at
648:BLP(biographies of living persons)
294:part article on Big Download (AOL)
24:
425:. Good thing to know about. -
1:
669:I hope this helps things.—
719:
618:17:12, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
604:16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
574:08:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
520:00:46, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
484:09:40, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
453:23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
437:01:22, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
413:19:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
391:11:27, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
381:Search video game sources
361:22:26, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
332:17:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
312:11:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
265:22:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
240:21:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
220:21:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
695:Please do not modify it.
683:07:01, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
553:07:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
251:. I browsed through the
202:. It doesn't even pass
61:01:15, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
580:Actually, notability
501:few or no other edits
503:outside this topic.
537:strictly forbidden
286:Rock Paper Shotgun
44:The result was
602:
504:
435:
393:
330:
238:
710:
697:
679:
674:
628:V(verifiability)
596:
549:
544:
486:
429:
371:
324:
232:
216:
211:
196:reliable sources
189:
188:
174:
126:
116:
98:
34:
718:
717:
713:
712:
711:
709:
708:
707:
706:
700:deletion review
693:
677:
672:
547:
542:
282:Play This Thing
214:
209:
131:
122:
89:
73:
70:
59:
51:NativeForeigner
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
716:
714:
705:
704:
689:
688:
687:
686:
685:
667:
666:
665:
659:
658:
657:
641:
577:
576:
558:
557:
556:
555:
523:
522:
505:
455:
442:
441:
440:
439:
416:
415:
394:
368:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
351:Greg Costikyan
315:
314:
298:another nugget
267:
242:
192:
191:
128:
124:AfD statistics
69:
64:
55:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
715:
703:
701:
696:
690:
684:
681:
680:
675:
668:
663:
660:
655:
652:
651:
649:
645:
642:
639:
636:
635:
633:
629:
625:
624:N(notability)
621:
620:
619:
615:
611:
607:
606:
605:
600:
595:
591:
587:
583:
579:
578:
575:
571:
567:
563:
560:
559:
554:
551:
550:
545:
538:
534:
533:
530:articles for
527:
526:
525:
524:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
485:
481:
477:
473:
470:
466:
463:
459:
456:
454:
451:
447:
444:
443:
438:
433:
428:
424:
420:
419:
418:
417:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
395:
392:
389:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
369:
362:
359:
356:
352:
348:
344:
343:Kieron Gillen
340:
339:Jim Rossignol
335:
334:
333:
328:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
310:
307:
303:
299:
295:
291:
287:
283:
279:
275:
271:
268:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
243:
241:
236:
231:
227:
224:
223:
222:
221:
218:
217:
212:
205:
201:
198:establishing
197:
187:
183:
180:
177:
173:
169:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
137:
134:
133:Find sources:
129:
125:
120:
114:
110:
106:
102:
97:
93:
88:
84:
80:
76:
72:
71:
68:
65:
63:
62:
58:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
694:
691:
670:
590:crystal ball
585:
581:
561:
540:
536:
531:
529:
507:
469:PC PowerPlay
457:
445:
396:
372:
278:Jay is Games
269:
244:
225:
207:
193:
181:
175:
167:
160:
154:
148:
142:
132:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
512:24.0.228.58
508:Strong Keep
499:) has made
405:Marasmusine
274:full review
158:free images
599:Talk to me
594:Realkyhick
532:discussion
432:Talk to me
427:Realkyhick
327:Talk to me
322:Realkyhick
257:Wyatt Riot
235:Talk to me
230:Realkyhick
200:notability
610:Jaryth000
566:Jaryth000
446:Weak keep
347:Gamasutra
75:Minecraft
67:Minecraft
497:contribs
462:PC Gamer
450:MuZemike
423:WP:VG/RS
401:WP:VG/RS
302:reliable
247:. Fails
119:View log
57:Contribs
388:another
385:Someone
358:another
355:Someone
309:another
306:Someone
226:Delete.
164:WP refs
152:scholar
92:protect
87:history
662:WP:WEB
630:, and
586:verify
489:Zuriki
476:Zuriki
467:) and
249:WP:WEB
245:Delete
204:WP:WEB
136:Google
96:delete
678:dαlus
654:WP:RS
548:dαlus
474:). --
215:dαlus
179:JSTOR
140:books
113:views
105:watch
101:links
16:<
644:WP:V
638:WP:N
614:talk
570:talk
562:Keep
516:talk
493:talk
480:talk
458:Keep
409:talk
397:Keep
373:Note
341:and
296:and
270:Keep
261:talk
206:. —
172:FENS
146:news
109:logs
83:talk
79:edit
46:keep
539:.—
379:. (
276:on
186:TWL
121:•
117:– (
673:Dæ
634:.
626:,
616:)
582:is
572:)
543:Dæ
518:)
495:•
487:—
482:)
411:)
383:)
292:,
288:,
263:)
210:Dæ
166:)
111:|
107:|
103:|
99:|
94:|
90:|
85:|
81:|
48:.
612:(
601:)
597:(
568:(
514:(
491:(
478:(
471:(
464:(
434:)
430:(
407:(
329:)
325:(
259:(
237:)
233:(
190:)
182:·
176:·
168:·
161:·
155:·
149:·
143:·
138:(
130:(
127:)
115:)
77:(
54:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.