FOSS gamedev and creative worlds

Hi everyone, it's my first time here on the forums, after having to get my name corrected.

Anyways, before getting my account, I saw something glaring. Despite some of the other Wikipedia websites having an article about this game (listed below),

• Català
• Deutsch/German
• Esperanto
• Español/Spanish
• Interlingua
• Bahasa Indonesia
• Українська/Ukrainian
• 粵語/Cantonese

the English Wikipedia does not (the article is currently available as a draft), and that could be seen by some people as an embarrassment. Why?
According to the draft's submission, the article was declined to be turned into a real article because

This submission's references do not adequately show the subject's notability ... Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable, and there is clear evidence of why the subject is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia.

Additionally, from the reviewer of the draft:

There's no point in adding reviews from random bloggers, they'll get removed anyway.

So what can be done to remedy this situation? Add more references to the article, secondary ones preferred. They should be ones independent of the Minetest project, or have no affiliation with it. If more such sources exist, peer-reviewed publications, monographs, and textbooks are preferred when finding reliable sources, instead of the blog-based reviews.

Now I do have an account under the name of "Globalearth", so I can also help out if I am given where to look for sources. I see potential for this game to become more mainstream, and a well-crafted Wikipedia article only helps it become more notable. I would hate to see this game become history with wasted potential.

People say that the game is not enough popular yet.
See the debate here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minetest.
The notability criteria are very restrictive about video games.
See also this topic.

Don't forget that the right to be on Wikipedia does not take part of the Human Rights :-p

I would like to see Minetest on Wikipedia but does it really meet the criteria ? We need to prove it by showing independent sources like online news. I have not found many ones, I don't know if it's enough.

I've saw a minetest review in full circle magazine (http://fullcirclemagazine.org/issue-98/) on page 50, if that matters for the inclusion on wikipedia.

It's not about popularity, it's about notability - how many good independant sources there are. There used to be an English article but it was deleted. It can now be found in my user space on wikipedia. Also see the previous thread about this, by me - but don't bump.

That random blogger was c55, and it's fine to cite blogs if you are citing what they said.

Unfortunately, c55/celeron55/Perttu Ahola, is the creator of Minetest, so it's hard to say that this person is a random blogger, but worse, someone with ties to it, failing the part of an independent source. [Why? Perttu might have his own bias for this game that is unlikely to produce a neutral source.]
I did look at the other topic relating to this situation, but I think that most don't reflect the current state of Minetest (though I did not look at all the sources provided yet). I also noticed about the screenshots available on Wikimedia Commons: all of them don't feature stuff with the new default textures. I have some screenshots suitable for uploading if okay with all of you.
Should we try finding sources that better reflect the current state of Minetest (e.g. at least on or after summer 2014)?

Українська/Ukrainian is set to deletion, anyway...

Worldblender wrote:a well-crafted Wikipedia article only helps it become more notable.

You see, it should be the other way around. Wikipedia is not to be used to get notability.
In fact, this kind of thinking hinders minetest's chances to get on the english wiki.

The drafts itself might be improved by translating the german article, because it seems long enough, with a lot of different sources, so it could help (if it is not too outdated), but, honestly, I'm not even sure.

The deleted article had not such a bad sources, but it was not enough anyway, and the deletion discussion got very very personal.

I just don't see the point in forcing the way to wikipedia.

It might help most if there where any further sources. Linux magazines and sites might be intrested in it, and those could then be quoted in return.