Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minetest

Add links
Page semi-protected
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. There are many arguments among the "keep" advocates that are not based on Wikipedia's deletion policy. These included WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:BIG, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and arguments that showed a lack of understanding of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. After excluding these arguments, there seems to be a general agreement that the article doesn't have the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources necessary for it to pass the general notability guideline. I have basically ignored the discussion about conflicts of interest in my close, and focused solely on whether or not the article satisfies Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Further concerns about conflicts of interest can be taken to the conflicts of interest noticeboard. — Mr. Stradivarius (have a chat) 05:32, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minetest

Minetest (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)

The article is about a non-notable game. The article provides a few sources but only one is reliable and one reliable source can not establish notability. The article has had a while to establish notability, but failed to do so and in my belief is now appropriate for a AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Of the sources provided, all are either unreliable or not independent; notability is not established. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:48, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If Minecraft is notable, its competitors are as well. Notability goes beyond Wikipedia's overly-strict rules - it also matters whether the people who play, modify, or contribute to the game consider it to be. In addition, you can't expect a game with 1% of the user base that Minecraft has to be able to achieve the same amount of coverage in third-party media. That's like expecting someone to first gain nation- or worldwide recognition of some invention of theirs before it's allowed to be covered on Wikipedia - despite how vital it might be to, say, national security, public health, etc. Before you start deleting articles that at least have some citations from sources that are considered reliable within the community, try first deleting EVERY article from Wikipedia that has no sources at all, or where those sources are dubious. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Vanessa, May I say, Just because Minecraft is notable does not mean Minetest is. Also, AfD is a place where editors nominate articles that they thing are not supposed to be on Wikipedia, Being here does not guarantee removal hence if you want to provide a reason of why Minetest should stay you need to use policies. Just saying 'Minecraft is notable' is not a valid reason. Minetest has one reliable source, which is just on the edge of being reliable. Wikipedia sometimes keeps articles with no sources (In extreme cases) because they are themselves notable and have no challenged (Or could be challenged) data. In addition some of the sources used do not include the information they are verifying, And there is the question of most Minetest images being deleted for copyright violations (As evidences by the Minetest history). John F. Lewis (talk) 20:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violations? I see no such things. All images uploaded and linked to the article when I last looked were all freely available per the game's and its imagery's licenses as all of them are screenshots from different parts of the game or mods and texture packs available for it. At least one of those images is entirely my own work (such as the one depicting the pipes) save for the background behind the subject of the image.Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the Minetest articles history regarding image deletions. This is a discussion mainly based around the articles deletion for not being notable, So if you would like to make a policy comment to support your keep comment, that would be welcomed. If not, The closing admin may not take your comment in as most AfD comments needs to be backed up by Policy. John F. Lewis (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The supposedly-offending images have been replaced with ones I can guarantee are free. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
...and another; why think the amount of magazines/web sites talking about it is important? I could perfectly fake the "notability" of something if I wanted. Calinou - talk × contribs » 12:05, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll mention that merely being listed in a distro respository does not confer notability, but the first link from linux.org could merit some consideration, but I haven't analyzed it enough. --MuZemike 20:54, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They all look unusable towards meeting the WP:GNG. The first two look like they link to forum posts, while the second two look more like database entries that do little more than show it exists... Sergecross73 msg me 05:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the post states: the first two are from a known Russian News-site and the later two prove that the two greatest Linux-distributions (Fedora and Ubuntu) support this game by including it in their packet-archives
  • Keep - Looks like the poor deletionists/Minecraft fanboys are getting angry. The article has enough sources (if you want, I can point to several [read: thousands] articles which have almost zero references/sources); the page has enough content and it has encyclopedic value, like the dozens of articles about FOSS games. Calinou1 (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I have not decided in this AfD whether or not to keep or delete.
  2. I have never played Minecraft before.
  3. Knock it off with the attacks; I did not say one thing that was disparaging to anybody here.
--MuZemike 21:43, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Minetest appears to have a large community, and despite it not getting written about very often I find it suprising that they have 75 people on their main IRC channel alone. Considering that there are 2,904 registered minetest users in their forums at this point in time, I'd tend to think at the very least that they are large enough to update & maintain a wiki article, and if anything they are more notable due to the community they have built when compared to many other articles I have seen survive a speedy deletion. Danry25 (talk) 21:05, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There are many, many, many sites with 2,904+ registered users but this doesn't establish WP:N. The article has no coverage whatsoever in WP:RS and fails WP:GNG since created. The sources used are either primary sources, that is, the subpages from the website of Minetest or are from secondary sources, from which I won't consider two reliable. The article is majorly unsourced since long time and I've always failed to find any source for them. The bottom line is; the article fails WP:GNG as the article is dependent on associated sources and mostly, it it unsourced. On the other hand, there is nothing notable about the game nor has the game received any reviews or awards or any controversy that would make the subject notable. I cannot find a single fact which would make me feel that the article or the game is notable. And even the google search results and the sources used up or coming up in google search, don't give any hint of notability about the subject. Right now, it is clearly not WP:N, but in future it may get notable and can have an article. For now, it is a delete. TheSpecialUser TSU 22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - I'm little concerned regarding the keep votes. Vanessaezekowitz has an connection with the subject as the editor almost performed WP:EW at the article by removing maintenance tags from it. They also add up by comparing the article with Minecraft but there is no policy which states that if article A is notable then B will also be. It is just a POV. 2nd keep vote is by celeron who has no edits whatsoever but just this AFD and the username was created on the day AFD started which clearly gives me the thing that the account is intended merely to save the article rather then any other purpose. And the 3rd vote so far, I won't say much regarding it but they have been editing articles with similar topics and has a connection with the subject, plus, they doesn't seem to have understood the policy properly and are also making personal attacks. The 4th vote says that there are 2,904 users but the same implies for 1000s of other webistes and this doesn't constitute WP:N. They also state that "update & maintain a wiki article" but the subject isn't enough notable to do that as there would not be any sources available about the article other then it's own website till the game gets notable. TheSpecialUser TSU 22:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I removed those tags based on what I perceived as a biased opinion. As you surely have noticed, I have left them in place after that particular argument was settled.
  •  Comment: - In addition to TSU comments, Vanessaezekowitz is a moderator and a contributor to the site and development. Celeron55 is a clear SPA (Single Purpose Account) and in addition he is the games creator and main developer. Calinou1 (On Minetest its Calinou) is a moderator and contributor to the development and site. All three users have a possible (If not obvious) COI. I have also tagged Celeron55 as a SPA for other editors and administrators to view the SPA in an easy to see way. Note, I viewed the site to see all four contributors relation. I found three editors have connections and one does not. John F. Lewis (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I appreciate the suggestion that anyone commenting on this AfD entry is expressing a conflict of interest, but as I can only speak for myself, I am compelled to point out that every edit I have ever made to a Wikipedia article is done with the intent of being neutral and of improving the overall state of the site's content (though the current argument might seem to diverge from that). Any bias I might have stays squarely on my side of the keyboard. Second, you are in violation of both WP:AGF and the very WP:COI you cited (namely, by not even discussing the purported conflict with any of us before bringing it up here, and by stating your allegations in such a way as to make the three of us look like we're in the wrong). Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:20, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
May you please point out how I am in violation of WP:AGF and WP:COI. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:COI in the "How to Handle" section, "The first approach should be direct discussion of the issue with the editor, referring to this guideline. If persuasion fails, consider whether you are involved in a content dispute. If so, an early recourse to dispute resolution may help. Another option is to initiate discussion at WP:COIN, where experienced editors may be able to help you resolve the matter without recourse to publishing assertions and accusations on Wikipedia. Using COI allegations to harass an editor or to gain the upper hand in a content dispute is prohibited, and can result in a block or ban."
From the first paragraph of WP:AGF, "Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. It is the assumption that editors' edits and comments are made in good faith. Most people try to help the project, not hurt it. [...] When disagreement occurs, try to the best of your ability to explain and resolve the problem, not cause more conflict, and so give others the opportunity to reply in kind. " By claiming conflict of interest where there is none, you are from my point of view also failing to assume good faith.
Furthermore, as you know, WP:IAR (namely in the article linked there describing what it does and doesn't mean) makes it plain as day that Wikipedia's rules are meant to be ignored if they hinder the improvement of Wikipedia, plus WP:5P makes it abundantly clear that Wikipedia's "rules" aren't so much rules as guidelines, and that they can sometimes fail at their purpose; that their intent is more important than their literal meanings.
Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is really a concern to be addressed else where and not at a AfD discussion. To your response, I am not the only editor who says or express concern over COI. Sergecross73 also expresses the concern below. If you most honestly do believe I am in violation of the policies and I am 'harassing' you, Then go to either WP:AN or WP:Dispute and I will be more than happy to co-operate, As I do not believe I am in violation of the rules. Also please do not reply to this, rather address it to one of those two links or my talk page as this is not relative to the AfD discussion. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have definitely not acted out of line. You just did your homework on them, and now Vanessa's trying to turn it back on you because she seems to have no other defense. If she's a mod/contributor for something related to the article topic, then there's a conflict of interest, regardless of intentions. Sergecross73 msg me 23:57, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Almost every editor to the article has a connection to Minetest. So a COI is present apart from editors conduction Maintenance, Corrections and removal of deleted images. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I the only exception? Regardless, I just dropped 5 minutes & found a slew of articles. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer all have covered Minetest, there are probably a few more but this should suffice notability wise. Also, if your gonna forbid the dedicated developers, their supporters & passerbys like me from editing articles, you pretty much eliminate 99% of the people who would write & maintain articles. But hey, who wants articles on wikipedia?Danry25 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don`t think that anyone remotely suggest that developers were banned from editing but simply that if the only people asking to keep an article and there is agreement among unaffiliated editors that the sources that are being presented do not meet Wikipedia standards a direct connection to the subject of the article that should be taken into account. Can you please show anywhere in this discussion where anyone told any of the developers or people associated with them that they could not edit the article itself? Also do you have any evidence that 99 percent of editors edit an article that they have a direct conflict of interest in because to be frank that very hard to believe.--174.93.171.108 (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do edit wikipedia at times; for example this was my edit two days ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Polynomial_code&diff=511191943&oldid=409018374 - just created this account to give you some handle to point at me, and to not falsely hide my identity, which'd been kind of not appropriate in this case for obvious reasons. I was actually surprised to find out I didn't have an existing account. Anyway, I will not start to build any kind of wikipedia fame for this account as long as wikipedia allows me to edit things without it. Celeron55 (talk) 05:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - How are the keep votes invalid? Please elaborate. Wei2912 (talk) 10:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Then, the Minecraft page should be deleted too; let's delete all the pages because they were all written by evil corporates. Calinou1 (talk) 11:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll gladly elaborate. Rather than concentrating on showing coverage in reliable sources, many of the arguments are focusing on "There are X many users.", or "There are other worse articles out there, so this one should stay". Neither argument holds any weight on Wikipedia's standards for notability standards. It's pretty clear to see, virtually every "Keep" argument is someone related to the game, where as every "Delete" argument is from someone not connected to the game at all. That should be a pretty clear hint to the closing Admin... Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm not sure where others are searching, but I'm finding a large number of references to this application across the Internet. It seems that some are preferring deletion simply because it is similar to a more popular application. Qaddosh|contribstalk 03:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - Also, by the logic that 'just because Minecraft is notable...' then would that not mean that Minicraft is not notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia? Qaddosh|contribstalk 04:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Minecraft is notable because it has coverage in multiple, reliable sources, making it meet the WP:GNG. There are an endless supply of articles from websites like IGN or Eurogamer that easily make it notable. The same can't be said about "Minetest", as far as I've seen so far... Sergecross73 msg me 04:39, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where in the above comment did I mention Minecraft beyond quoting a comment? And 'as far as I've seen so far'? Does that mean something is less true because you have not seen it? Qaddosh|contribstalk 12:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed, His account is here and is used actively. John F. Lewis (talk) 10:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The concept of "Conflict of interest" is false already. It's like if you told total computer newbies to package some random software for a Linux distribution. If every article was created, edited and maintained by random out-of-the-community people, Wikipedia's quality would certainly be inferior -- I suggest reading the whole article; it is perfectly neutral, thus there is no COI. Calinou1 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
30 posts is hardly active to Minetest standards, most members produce 200 posts in a month because of all the requests etc.Rubenwardy (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Minetest, On Wikipedia some contribution within the past month can be classed as active in this case, it is. John F. Lewis (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is no problem at all with the article. Sources are reliable (as of now), there is no copyright violation. What is more, you should know that just because something is not notable does not mean it should be deleted. Please, read this: Wikipedia:Deletion_policy - in where do you see that something which is not notable should be deleted? Some quotes:
If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. Vandalism to a page's content can be reverted by any user.
A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem

These are alternatives that should be used to solve this problem. Wei2912 (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems that this article conflicts with my statement about notability: Wikipedia:Notability#Articles_not_satisfying_the_notability_guidelines. Please take a look - you can see clearly that "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Also, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them" - we have already found a few notable sources. If you regard these sources as of "unclear notability", deletion will remain as a last resort. Unless you can prove outright that those sources are not notable, the page shouldn't be deleted.Wei2912 (talk) 09:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All those COI-s seem to be quite pointless to me, as you just declare everyone having anything to do with Minetest having a COI. As the Game is Open-source and extendable by mods its only natural that even the average player has extended/contirbuted to Minetest in some way. So if you want to delete the article about Minetest, delete every article about Open-source-products, too. and by the way: Of course i have a COI, too, i like the Game.
  • Keep - I agree that this page should be kept, there are thousands of other pages without citations. I have not had enough time to develop this page recently, but this page is still much better than most wikipedia articles. --Rubenwardy (talk) 11:44, 9 September 2012 (UTC) I struck this !vote per your updated !vote below. VQuakr (talk) 16:09, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
— Note to closing admin: Rubenwardy (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. John F. Lewis (talk) 11:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: - By the same logic that Sergecross73 applies to COI, then all of his edits regarding Sonic & Knuckles should be undone. He clearly has a conflict of interest regarding those edits as seen here and here. Minetest 0.2 was featured in LinuxFormat magazine as seen here and here. The top of this very page states to remember to assume good faith. Both Sergecross73 and John F. Lewis are cherry-picking which policies they think should be followed. Qaddosh|contribstalk 12:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Raised once, Raised again. Care to elaborate on your accusations? John F. Lewis (talk) 12:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a huge difference between your example and what you've done. My comments are at a third party website (Gamefaqs) asking questions about Sonic games that weren't even Sonic and Knuckles. I'm not an admin or member of Sega's official website discussing a deletion of one of the games saying "Hey guys, don't worry, I'll defend us!". It's also irrelevent because no one is putting Sonic and Knuckles up for deletion, nor is there any good faith reason why it should be deleted.
  • Also, WP:AGF does not apply here. If we were throwing out groundless claims of COI's, then you could play that card. But we're not, there is very concrete proof with the links at the Minetest forums. That thread makes it very clear; (http://minetest.net/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2876) that this article was created in efforts to promote the game (they were even discussing trying to add "gameguide" information and "How to play" videos to the article if they could. It's plain as day, the intent is promotion, not to better the Wikipedia project. Sergecross73 msg me 17:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason i created this article is because, like most other editors, i have a thirst for knowledge, and the Minetest article did not previously exist. I did not want this to be an "advertisment". The people wanting to add a video have not contributed at all, and i doubt they even have accounts. They are just players, and as you can see in the post I corrected them. Rubenwardy (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simple question: Did you at all research the notability of Minetest? With what you said it sound like you went 'Minetest is not on Wikipedia. Ill make!' instead of actually searching for sources. When I came across the article it had about 3 sources (All three, Not reliable) now the article has a few more, but still un-reliable. Wikipedia is a place for reliable content, not instant 'Its not there, Ill make it' decisions. John F. Lewis (talk) 18:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did search for sources, and i have a document on my computer of them. Rubenwardy (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if you want this article to be kept, it'd be best if you start showing some proof of them. All these "Other articles are worse so this should be kept", "But there's X people who play" and "WP:IAR" arguments aren't going to cut it... Sergecross73 msg me 18:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: see my post on Sergecross73's COI accusation of Qaddosh. This article is good compared to some of the articles on this wikipedia. We are in the process of trying to get game reviewers to review us. Rubenwardy (talk) 17:02, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because there are worse articles out there is not a valid argument in favor of keeping this article. It only means the worse article should probably be deleted as well. As far as the article's current sourcing, it currently uses one reliable source about ten times, and the rest of the sources are all first party from the official website or forums. First party sources don't count towards meeting the notability guidelines, and one reliable source isn't going to cut it. If you get game reviewers to review the game, great, but then the article should be recreated if/when that happens. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Game reviews are not necessarily neutral; most game testers don't work for free (talking about "paper" magazines), you know. Also, if this article is kept, why would it harm Wikipedia, since the purpose of deletion is to remove harm? Calinou - talk × contribs » 22:14, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless of being neutral, they're undeniably third party, and there's consensus that they count as WP:reliable sources that go towards meeting the WP:GNG. As far as "harm" goes, if every single odd game that is ever created have it's own article, Wikipedia will turn into a junkyard that lists every little random game any random person created, and/or it would turn into an advertizing place where developers/publishers go to plug their latest product. Sergecross73 msg me 02:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - None of the references in the article present significant coverage in reliable sources as discussed at WP:GNG, and a brief search online did not yield anything better. VQuakr (talk) 07:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "brief search" -- mind elaborating? Also; Wikipedia is supposed to be a free encyclopedia which aims at building knowledge -- why destroy other's people work about FOSS games? This AfD request really looks like griefing. Calinou - talk × contribs » 15:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: academic degree, job and user page completeness do not make the user's arguments right.

  • Wikipedia is a free encylopedia, but that doesn't mean anything and everything belongs on it. Wikipedia has policies, and we're supposed to enforce them. If you aim to change Wikipedia's standards for what warrants an article, go for it, but this is not the place to change policy. Also, not sure why you're making notes to the admin about jobs/education or userpages. Admin know that already, and no one has suggested that should have any bearing on what happens to this article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. After observing that the existing article did not contain any sources that met the notability guideline. I clicked the "find sources" link at the top of this page and looked for anything better. I then tinkered with a few other Google search permutations for about ten minutes. If you can provide examples of sources that meet the standards outlined in the guideline that I might have missed, I will happily reassess my position. BTW, I based my opinion that the article should be deleted on a notability guideline, not an appeal to my academic degree, job or user page completeness. VQuakr (talk) 03:12, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In just 5 minutes of searching I found a slew of articles that'd be fine things to cite. iloveubuntu, Linuxo Planet, LinuxGames, Linux Game News, and Free Gamer have all covered Minetest, there are a few more out ther probably but this should suffice notability wise. Note: please see my earlier comment about 1/3 of the way into the page. Danry25 (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any of these websites being reliable sources for video games on Wikipedia, and the actual content of these sources are extremely light. I mean, "Free Games", for example, is a non-notable blog that contains five lines of bullet-point text, not a single one even a full sentence. Do you call this "significant coverage"? Linux Games is a singular paragraph, and the first 2 sources focus half the article on "How to install" the game. I imagine VQuakr probably skipped over most of these sources in his search, as I may have earlier... Sergecross73 msg me 10:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy - This article, while being satisfactory in content, I agree it does lack citations. A userfy or AfC would suit it. Rubenwardy (talk) 13:25, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. It doesn't matter who might or might not have a conflict of interest, or what the state of other articles on Wikipedia might be like; ultimately, this article must stand on its own and it simply does not have the sources that would justify inclusion. -- Whpq (talk) 16:38, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If Minecraft was kept with one source initially (Gamasutra), surely Minetest can survive with a few (smaller) sources. Also, it has several reviews and mentions at Gameboom. 207.148.178.146 (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - That discussion isn't relevant to here as the discussion about Minecraft's sourcing doesn't have a bearing on Minetest's sourcing. But in any case, the version of the Minecraft article at the closure of the AFD does not contain one source (Gamasutra). -- Whpq (talk) 21:37, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply - I'm guessing you didn't bother to really read the discussion you just linked to, considering there's more than just one source there. (Gamasutra, PC Gamer, PC Powerplay, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun are all useable sources, and presented in the discussion.) Beyond that, as Whpg says, even if you were right in what you're trying to say, it has no relevancy regarding this game or it's sourcing. If it was wrongfully kept, then you're just showing a shortcoming of the past, not presenting a valid argument for this article. Sergecross73 msg me 01:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as having insufficient in-dpeth coverage in independent third party sources to meet WP:GNG. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 10:45, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lack of significant reliable coverage. All keep arguments appear to boil down to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, or show clear WP:COI issues along with potential meatpuppetry. -- ferret (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - sure, let's make WP a battlefield where you critisize contributors. While we're at it, let's "hackccuse" people like poor UrT players. Calinou - talk × contribs » 11:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of sufficient coverage and failing to establish notability. A lot of the opposing arguments have a clear Conflict of Interest and don't really provide any additional information to establish notability. Like Minecraft, this may get more coverage in the future, but at the moment it doesn't even pass the bare minimum. ArkRe (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I've said it once somewhat vaguely, now I'm saying it again clearly - WP:COI is not appropriate to be used against someone who happens to know pertinent details about a subject. So far, and I state this for the record: every COI claim made in this discussion has been falsely applied. Such claims are only appropriate if the editors in question are astroturfing, distorting the truth, or otherwise trying to take the article past simply encyclopedic content and into the realm of advertising or so. An article doesn't just need references/citations - IT REQUIRES close attention by people knowledgeable in a given field or subject or it doesn't stand a chance of becoming an informative article. You don't ask an expert on Pokémon to contribute to an article on quantum physics if he or she doesn't also have some expertise in that field. The Minetest article discussed here is in that same situation now - every one of us who has contributed to it has done so with the express purpose of creating a neutral, content-filled encyclopedic article; if we wanted to advertise, there are far better avenues for that than Wikipedia. So I am asking politely here to stop making WP:COI claims. Furthermore, I am also asking (I'd call it demanding but I'm not an admin) that claims that the article's source websites are non-notable be stopped outright - it has been established that some of those websites (including ones linked in this discussion) have already been vetted by Wikipedia editors in the past as being reliable sources, and once that is established, it is supposed to be assumed by WP editors that the content on those sites is generally reliable as well, even if it is in a language you can't read. If you can't read the language used for even ONE of the sources linked in this discussion or in the article, any claims from those people that the unread sources are unreliable/not-notable are by definition invalid. Finally, if you are about to contribute to this discussion, I highly advise you read the entire discussion in detail before you comment. Some of the people adding their !votes to this discussion have clearly either not read the whole discussion, or have only just skimmed it, or really do show a conflict of interest. I'm asking that this behavior be stopped immediately - those people's comments are also, by definition, invalid. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 15:42, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Repeating yourself doesn't always make it true. A "Conflict of Interest" can arise when one has personal ties to a subject that could affect their neutrality. It doesn't necessarily imply that the supposedly conflicted person actually has acted inappropriately; rather, it's a warning that they might. Identifying potential COI is an important, if not essential part of the Wikipedia process. Calling out other Wiki editors on their presumed COI is a wikilawyering tactic that could be abused. I imagine that at least some of the "support" voices in this AfD don't really have a significant COI. However, persons who are moderators on external forums connected with the subject, do show evidence of personal ties (if slight). "Being knowledgeable" on the subject isn't a sin. But hiding your affiliation with that subject is considered harmful to the interests of building an encyclopedia. Identifying, vetting sources and discussing their reliability is another key Wikipedia process. Asking us not to do so is inconsiderate. The one source I can see that appears to meet Wikipedia RS criteria (linux.org) is considered reliable within a specific domain (Linux Operating System) and not broadly reliable on every subject. --Robert Keiden (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe any of the posts (or editors) in this discussion are invalid. I don't believe that the subject (Minetest) is invalid, or even the Minetest article on Wikipedia. The opinions expressed are valid, too. However, validity doesn't automatically confer notability. Wikipedia has criteria for that (which in the end, are judged subjectively by consensus of editors). The best way to "save" this article would be to convince the bulk of the editors in this AfD that preserving it would further the interests of the encyclopedia, but the arguments offered so far haven't been very persuasive.--Robert Keiden (talk) 16:40, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The problem isn't that people are saying that COI may be indicated. The problem is people saying there is a COI without backing it up. That is what I am complaining about. "May be" is not the same as "is". The information presented in those various references is accurate and unbiased as far as I am tell. They are reliable, notable sources, even if some editors don't see it that way. And I never said don't contribute/comment - I said read the the discussion in its entirety first before commenting. That's a reasonable expectation, and I have yet to participate in any venue where such practices were considered okay. And, as clearly indicated in WP:BCDD (paragraph 6) and WP:JUSTA, citing a rule (whether WP:COI or otherwise) without adequate explanation of why and how that rule applies is unacceptable. No one here has provided an unbiased, clear reasoning for their COI claims. Vanessaezekowitz (talk) 17:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regardless of any COI issues, there aren't the sources to meet the GNG. Sources presented do not meet wikipedias standard. Sergecross73 msg me 23:42, 15 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minetest&oldid=1136109535"