Deletion of Minetest

Comment: No coverage in |third party, reliable sources. Fails the . So far all the keep votes are invalid. Number of users, or it's competitors, do not establish notability on Wikipedia, and the sources so far |don't qualify as "reliable" as far as Wikipedia goes. I too see concerns of  and  as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:IRS||WP:COI||WP:SPA)

Comment: for lack of significant reliable coverage. All keep arguments appear to boil down to  arguments, or show clear  issues along with potential meatpuppetry
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS||WP:COI)

Comment: There are many, many, many sites with 2,904+ registered users but this doesn't establish . The article has no coverage whatsoever in  and fails  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  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 , but in future it may get notable and can have an article. For now, it is a delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:N)

Comment: I've said it once somewhat vaguely, now I'm saying it again clearly -  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  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
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)