Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vintage Story

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 no consensus. Everyone seems to agree that the notability of the subject is not very strong. Since it is clearly a borderline case I will close the discussion as No consensus, even though the majority of the participating editors suggest that we keep the article. There is clearly no consensus to delete the article, however. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vintage Story[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

There is not much significant coverage here, just looks like a Minecraft clone. Most coverage is trivial in articles talking about an update or with titles like The best games like Minecraft or 4 best PC games like Minecraft. Can't see this passing WP:GNG. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 13:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, not much more to be said. The nom sums it up._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: While 3 of the references listed do indeed contain more trivial mentions and direct comparisons to Minecraft, the article also has dedicated coverage in the other 2 references: Vintage Story Is An Uncompromising Survival Sandbox Inspired By Lovecraft and The impressive Seasons Update for wilderness survival sandbox Vintage Story is out. These sources look to be independent and reputable enough to class the game as notable. Calling Vintage Story a Minecraft clone is as accurate as calling Minecraft an Infiniminer clone -- Infiniminer was one of Notch's biggest influences in creating Minecraft. It would not be fair to disparage the game due to the context of the articles it is mentioned in; in reality the block-based art style is where the similarity between the two games ends. The description of the game in the Gameplay section illustrates the uniqueness of the game in this respect. fruitshakes (talk) 14:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added two more sources focused exclusively on the game. Also, given that Minecraft is so popular, it is very easy to label any pixel-graphic block-based survival game as a Minecraft clone. Yes, it is very true that Vintage Story is arguably a Minecraft clone, because it was created with the goal of being a better Minecraft. This does not invalidate the merits of the game itself as shown in the reviews, which all basically say it does everything Minecraft does but better. - VeryGoodDog 15:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extremely Weak Keep I'm going with keep because of the two reviews from Gaming Cypher and Rock Paper Shotgun. While I agree the rest are bad, and the she Rock Paper Shotgun article could probably be better, I still think it's enough. Although, it's really border line. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Gaming Cypher, Gaming on Linux, and Power up Gaming all look like very obscure sites to me, and not reliable. Rock, Paper, Shotgun (which is owned by Eurogamer) is the only source establishing notability in my opinion. For a game which is very similar to Minecraft, I don't think it's enough coverage. Dylsss^{(talk • contribs)} 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep pre Adamant1. The RPS review is substantial for sure. Perhaps the others aren't especially substantial and reliable, but it's borderline. What tips me to a weak keep instead of merge is that this makes more sense as a stand-alone article than covered in some other article. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:48, 29 October 2020 (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.