Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mindcraft

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 Merge to The Magic Candle; the nominator approves this outcome and the only deletion vote mentions possible notability "in relation to the games", of which The Magic Candle has been deemed the most important one. (non-admin closure) Salvidrim! 19:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mindcraft[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Mindcraft" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Contested PROD. I couldn't find sources that were any more than a passing reference to this company, so I don't think it satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 02:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I made the page because it is actually referenced quite a few times in other wiki pages. The dates make it harder to find sources (pre-internet), but I have a small but growing list of published articles to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzamancer (talk • contribs) 03:38, 19 April 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) 17:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the talk page: Being a professional game developer, I agree that Mindcraft is a very notable company and should have a Wikipedia entry. Several of their games, most especially The Magic Candle, have influenced the designs of later best selling games. For example, several features I designed and implemented in Ultima Online were influenced by The Magic Candle. The company and games are also referenced in The History of Computer Role-Playing Games Part 2: The Golden Age (1985-1993) JasonSpangler (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link for a printed book about the history of computer role-playing games that could be added as a reference for Mindcraft: Dungeons and Desktops: The History of Computer Role-Playing Games JasonSpangler (talk) 14:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Pizzamancer (talk) 00:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at those two sources, and I'm afraid they don't provide "significant coverage" of the company. That is, they are about the games, not the company itself, and there are no details given about the company other than that it made the games. This is not enough to establish notability, I'm afraid. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:29, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I see lots of directory/listing entries, but no in-depth coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. I say "weak" because their games are notable and they are definitely mentioned in relation to the games, but not as source's topic/subject; and VG developer articles are often basis for their games list article. None of that passes WP:CORPDEPTH though. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 20:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the sources that Pizzamancer mentioned above, Mindcraft is primarily mentioned in relation to their most successful game, The Magic Candle. Because of this, I now think that the best solution may be to merge to that article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 00:35, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | speak _ 23:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Magic Candle, if the company is really only important in relation to that one game, we could simply merge the important parts of the article into the game's article. Ducknish (talk) 17:28, 1 May 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.