I don't like strict definitions, but marking Minecraft a Roguelike stretches that particular definition so much that it would cease to be relevant :-P Now, presuming your post is not just pointless flame baiting, I'll establish this to start off:

Guides broken down to individual points can (and I suppose often are) used as a 'proof' in case someone can't quite decide whether or not a game is or isn't Roguelike - in otherwords, games which are exceptionally close to rogue, but omit some key elements. Rogue was, at its base, an open RPG with important element of permadeath, turn-based combat and overhead perspective. I believe it was hedwards who told me that even a change of perspective changes a lot about a game - and, in retrospect, yeah, he's right. Which brings me to...

Yes, thus being called rogue-likes. Games which are like the original Rogue. They don't need to be a 1:1 copy obviously, but they do need to transfer the key elements of the original game. Roguelike more or less refers to topdown, turn-based, procedurally generated RPG with an important inclusion of permadeath and focus on player choice. As far as I understand it, roguelike is mostly a term for precisely that - and if a game is not like that, well, it can use any other combination of genre definitions to fit in, instead of trying to shape the term 'Roguelike' around itself in spite of the fact that it's nothing like Rogue. So let's see, Minecraft...

- ain't topdown. Important shift in gameplay, regardless of how many tiles can you see (it's about spacial awareness as opposed to field of view, you'll find that games like Sword of the Stars: The Pit actually implements cone of vision feature)

- ain't turnbased. Which completely changes dynamic of the game. In Minecraft, you don't get to think about any arisen situation - you just have to improvise out of it, somehow.

- Procedurally generated - oh yeah, it's got this part down. Of course, the procedural generation focuses on completely different aspects than that of a roguelike would.

- ain't an RPG - it has some minor RPG elements, but calling Minecraft an RPG would be a massive stretch. There's no character development, no choice-based storyline, no world which would react to you, pretty much any of the numerous conflicting definitions of an RPG would not rate Minecraft as one. Yea, it's got an inventory and crafting.

- ain't permadeath - when you die, you respawn. You don't lose your generated world and often enough, you don't even lose your stuff, as long as you manage to retreive it.

- focus on player choice - sure, Minecraft has that in spades. Of course, it's not a choice of how to build your character and how to beat a massive dungeon, but it has player choice.

To be fit for any detailed comparisons, a game would need to get trough the passing comparison first, which Minecraft would fail completely.

Now, due to how restrictive the term is, is there a chance of it dying off completely? Sure, if no more games like Rogue are made. Is that a bad thing? Nah (well, aside from the idea that games like rogue would stop to be made). I would much prefer an outdated term to stop being used than for it to transform into something else entirely, with said something else being utterly non-descriptive.

I have another question: Since we already have genre definitions which can describe pretty much any of the not-quite-roguelike games perfectly, why do some people insist on using the term roguelike? Clearly, those games are nothing like Rogue. I'm not going to call Fallout 3 a Doom clone because you get to shoot guns in it (and indeed, that is the reason why the term died off in the first place).

I don't think Roguelike even is a genre. It's just ... Games which are similar to rogue. A bunch of genres developed from ruguelikes, and into those genres, roguelikes can now be classified.