Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minecraft 2


 * 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 speedily deleted as hoax by (non-admin closure)  I, Jethrobot  drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 21:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Minecraft 2

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:N and WP:CRYSTAL. From the creators, "Hopefully releasing within the next two months, this 2-years-in-development game will be bringing blocky simulation games to the next level." The prod was contested. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Minecraft 2 was an April fools' joke, not an actual sequel to the game.  I do not believe it meets any kind of notability standard.  Grandmartin11 (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Minecraft per above; wouldn't mind a very small section about the joke, but not necessary. Ansh666 21:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Even the redirect doesn't make sense as while it was an April Fool's joke, it's not a reasonable search term. There's simply no Minecraft 2 even planned. --M ASEM (t) 02:14, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if someone's out of the loop or perhaps wants info on the joke itself, they might search it. Redirects are WP:CHEAP, anyways. Ansh666 03:08, 20 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Minecraft with a bit of rewrite. I play (but not rabidly) and I still hadn't heard of this joke.   Fylbecatulous   talk  03:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as G3 hoax. Even if Mojang released that April Fool's statement, this stub doesn't reference it or even have similar information (and no other info is available)—classify as hoax. If someone wants to make a cheap redirect afterwards, I don't think it's necessary, but it could potentially deter future copycats.  czar   &middot;   &middot;  19:14, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
 * 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.