Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mineplex

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 redirect to Minecraft#Multiplayer. Content can be merged from the history. Sandstein 11:38, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mineplex

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

Not notable, a server for a popular video game. It's listed as how some server can be exploitative, but nothing in-depth about Mineplex, likewise for "Top 5 Best Minecraft Servers" and a mention as "the most popular Minecraft server" is another listing. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of mentions in the VGRS search, and the Guinness Book of World Records citation is interesting. This topic is worth a mention somewhere. It's a merge or possibly a weak keep for me, and definitely not a delete. --Izno (talk) 14:20, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should remove this. Someone is probably going to make the article again in a few months anyway.

Mineplex is well known. It has many search results. It's not like we're advertising it. Also, Guinness World Records is a perfect source and that is why we should keep the page. I think we can watch this page get some references over time. All the information is correct in the article.

These sources I've given say that Mineplex is a Minecraft server. "Here's how exploitable servers can be" is a source mentioning Mineplex.

Mineplex doesn't really need a citation for being a Minecraft server anyway. You can clearly connect to it with a client. This isn't any Minecraft server that has been set up in 5 minutes and needs players. Mineplex is the one of the world's most popular Minecraft servers.

I think it deserves a page on Wikipedia. One day, someone in the future will be told about it and they will look it up here.

It's in Minecraft magazines. Let's keep the page but just warn people that there aren't many sources. We shouldn't delete this. Many YouTubers (with 10m subscribers) play Mineplex as well.

As I am writing this, there are over 2,000 players online right now. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 11:09, 8 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hi @Ashlandsimpson,

Thanks for your contributions. That someone might recreate an article is not a reason to delete it. That it is "well known", has over 2,000 players or being played by many YouTubers isn't a reason to keep it. Keeping or deleting an article is based upon whether or not an article's subject is notable, and in fact we do need a citation of it being a Minecraft server, so it's good that it's there. But I don't believe that stand-alone notability is proven at this point; it exists in the context of Minecraft, but there's no mention of Mineplex on the article of Minecraft. @Izno, I'm guessing this isn't the only well-established server, is a subsection in the multiplayer or development section about specific servers an idea? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From the search, it pops up in context of a couple other server farms regularly. I think I saw one or two articles dedicated to Mineplex, so a section or a couple sentences seems warranted. --Izno (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I want Wikipedia to improve. Everything needs contributors. This is what open source projects are about.

That someone might recreate an article is a reason NOT to delete it. Also, Mineplex is a Minecraft server and a very popular one. Guinness World Records wouldn't bother with MyFactionsServer created in 5 minutes.

Mineplex isn't Johnny's server when his friends come on. It is a good part of Minecraft.

I don't think we should delete this page. I think we should keep it or we could put a section on the Minecraft page about Mineplex. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 10:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

As a matter of clarification about keeping an article because someone else might otherwise create it again: If an article on a topic that doesn't qualify for inclusion is created multiple times, it is not only deleted multiple times, but it eventually ends up protected so that no one can create it again. We also have a provision for the speedy deletion of articles created after having been deleted as the outcome of a discussion such as this one. Largoplazo (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mineplex page should not be removed. It is not for advertising and it has decent citations. I believe you might be unaware about https://cse.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq&q=%22mineplex%22 having so many citations. I think the discussion should be closed and we should keep the page.

I've also given reliable sources like PCGamesN. Someone else said about Guinness World Records 2015. Mineplex isn't some server where the owner's friends come on and that's it. This has thousands of players. Normally, we shouldn't have pages like this but we should make a exception. I've given good sources saying that Mineplex is a gaming network for Minecraft. I've given a lot of citations as well as other people. We are not going to have 100-200 citations because Mineplex isn't an actor. Mineplex being a server is as obvious as traffic lights having green at the bottom unless tampered with.

What if someone in 50 years says to someone about Mineplex when it no longer works? They can search on Wikipedia about the information.

FUN FACT! Just in case you are thinking I'm advertising Mineplex, want to know something? I'm banned from it. The reason I'm doing this is because I want to contribute to Wikipedia. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I think we should close this discussion. There are so many citations about Mineplex. This page should be kept.

There's no longer much of a reason now to delete it. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ashlandsimpson: We usually end these discussions a week after they start, and I don't see a reason to end this one early. As for your link, I noted it myself. Unfortunately, there are not any, or many, sources treating this topic with significant coverage (multiple paragraphs dedicated to Mineplex), which is why I suggested it might be okay to reference it with a sentence in Minecraft. An article of the length that Wikipedia is currently covering the topic is however, inappropriate. You might try the Minecraft Wiki if you want to preserve the content, which is licensed compatibly with Wikipedia. --Izno (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I believe you wanted a source to say that Mineplex is a Minecraft server. Also, these sources that I've given are reliable (according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources). One of them are PCGamesN. We now have 5.

Guinness World Records is also very reliable and has cited that Mineplex is the most popular Minecraft server network. For the subsections, I've given one to an archive of Mineplex from the Wayback Machine. I've included Eurogamer on one of the sections as well.

Mineplex has a lot going on. We shouldn't have a subsection on Minecraft about it because Mineplex might make a server for another game. If Mineplex does do that, we can go to this page and say it's for Minecraft and other game. So, it should have a page.

This discussion might get out of hand soon. I don't think people want this deleted.

I think there would be less problems if we just kept this page. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 18:22, 11 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Ashlandsimpson, this is an open discussion, so please stop pushing for closing the discussion early. You made your case, it's clear that you're in favor of keeping the article, and you don't have to repeat yourself. You don't have to warn others for possible repercussions or say how popular it really is. See WP:ATA for some pointers. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 04:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Sorry about that. I am new to Wikipedia editing even if I've been a member for a while. I just need to get the hang of everything if you know what I mean.

I think I've repeated myself a little bit.

Thank you for the link by the way. I will check it out.

https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-3772550281.html could always be a good citation. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 09:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC) — Ashlandsimpson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 11:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Ashlandsimpson: you've more than made your point. Somewhere in this mess is an AfD discussion, I think. Anyway, merge with Minecraft. The Guinness mention is noteworthy but it doesn't automatically warrant an article that has next to no content. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've just kept saying that it should stay as a page. I don't know why it should be merged or deleted. It should be kept.

I've given a lot of citations. Some are very reliable. There are 5 to says it's a Minecraft server network.

@Beemer69 is it really promotional content? The hostnames? When you have the link to games on other articles. When you have a link to a singer's website on their page.

I've discussed the history of Mineplex as well and you've deleted that. Why is it advertising? I don't understand why it is promotional content.

Some people want this page. Many have tried making it stay by editing and adding citations. Guinness World Records was someone else's edit. There are nearly 10 citations. Does that mean it's a 10% chance of staying?

Is it suitable to merge this with Minecraft? No, it will probably have to be re-edited.

The safest way would be to keep this.

The more dangerous way would be to start merging it and everything else.

It's like you get slapped in the face for creating a good work. No support much. I don't know why I made this page.

I mean, look at it. I've got citations and people ignore the fact. Esoteric will be the best word to describe some editors.

I would appreciate for an administrator to decide whether or not the page should be deleted. <IP redacted> 12:03, 13 November 2017 (UTC) — <IP redacted> has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I'm just going to assume that's you, @Ashlandsimpson and you forgot to sign in. Please, you've been asked several times now to stop pushing for an early close and you are again repeating yourself over and over again. There is nothing "dangerous" going on. And please, don't call others "esoteric" because they don't agree with you. So far, you haven't provided any additional sources, and as the nominator, I haven't changed my mind. To me, Mineplex is a small detail in the world of Minecraft. But you know what, let's ask the admins @Czar:, @Sergecross73: and @Salvidrim!: what they think. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Minecraft. There's enough sourcing to verify its existence, but hardly anything else. There's very little actual content, and much of it, like listing the name of the server owners or mini-games it features, provide no content or information to the reader. (And the bit about "Block Hunt", for example, is not noted in its respective citation, let alone given any sort of sourced explanation on what it is.) With so little sourced content present, its better shown as a sentence or two in the main Minecraft article. Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's merge it into Minecraft. I'm starting to agree about that. It doesn't really fall into any category. Does it fall into video games? Computer programs? Movies? Songs? Albums? Places? People? No, it doesn't. I think we should put it in the Multiplayer section. I think it's ridiculous now. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Minecraft#Multiplayer looks like the best place to add a mention. Sergecross73 msg me 17:56, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Sergecross73: Agreed. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 18:10, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What sources reliable, secondary sources cover the Mineplex server in any depth? If it's mentioned in sources as a prominent server, proportional coverage would be similarly mentioning the server within Minecraft's article, if it's worth mentioning by name at all. It would suffice to describe such private servers in general terms. A section dedicated to the game's servers could eventually split summary style if warranted by an overabundance of sourcing. But I see no content to outright "merge" right now. Redirect to Minecraft#Multiplayer. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 19:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know how to merge but I will try my best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP> 10:00, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ashlandsimpson, you really have to remember to log in. Through your IP address people can see where you're located. It's fine if you're okay with it, but otherwise admins need to mask your IP edits. @Primefac, could you mask the IP address once more? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 13:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be the one who merges it - you can let someone else take care of it. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I do log in but I keep logging out. It might be private browsing that is doing this. Anyway, can someone merge it please? Thank you. Ashlandsimpson (talk) 16:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ashlandsimpson, would you Please. Just. Chill. This discussion will follow its course, it will be closed according to standard procedure when the time comes, and then the final outcome will be carried out. Largoplazo (talk) 17:02, 14 November 2017 (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.