Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minecraft@Home

Minecraft@Home

[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)

Notability is not inherited, and this article is entirely sourced to tangential trivial mentions in articles about Pack.PNG and Herobrine. However the Minecraft@Home team is not independently notable or GNG-passing. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral – I am left a bit confused by the sources. It is unclear to me whether Minecraft@Home is the name of the group of people who are undertaking these projects, or whether it is merely the name of the tool they have developed to make their discoveries. If it's the former, then this would be a good little article, but if it's the latter then I don't think it works. Regardless, the sources are giving very scant information about the people who made these discoveries happen, which is really sad... ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 09:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I had a feeling for a while the group could possibly be notable and I was willing to be patient, but after closer examination of the sources, I'm agreeing with Zx here. As for the confusing regarding what it is, this article is very poorly put together, and was even weaker when it was first made, so it makes sense why Maplestrip was confused. But it is in-fact a group, and I was at one point part of it. I don't know if that means I have a COI or not due to the group's nature but that shouldn't matter as I think the article should be deleted anyways. λ NegativeMP1 17:43, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like NegativeMP1, I thought the sources cited here might demonstrate WP:SIGCOV as they are reliable secondary sources, but they never quite go beyond WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. The group is already mentioned in the Herobrine article, appropriately briefly, and this article is very short anyway, so there would be no point in merging. Masskito (talk)
Delete: I have to agree with the editors above. As of the latest revision by RNGHit where they removed 3 sources, here's how the sources could be put: Sources 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11 and 14 are not about Minecraft@Home and they are trivial mentions. Sources 3, 6, 7, 8 and 13 doesn't talk about it at all. 9 and 12 shouldn't be here. The only thing notable here is Pack.PNG, but even that would fail WP:SUSTAINED as can be seen on Draft:Pack.PNG. win8x (talking | spying) 22:52, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Making this article was kinda pointless since it doesn’t meet notability criteria. RNGHit (talk) 22:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]