Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Conworld

Conworld
Not a textbook, Jguk 21:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, I am inclined to say keep on this one, because it's the kind of instructional resource that a person creating a piece of fiction could utilize. Fiction itself may not belong here on wikibooks, but the tools that professional writers might use to create fiction certainly could be. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:58, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Question Is this a proposal to delete just the conworlding (portal-like) page or to delete that and all the (separate) wikibooks relating to conworlding that are linked from it? -Ingolemo 11:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Useful literary instructional material. Lots of people do make up worlds. Pcu123456789 00:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The question is asked of all the Con- pages/books. I'd be a lot more comfortable if someone could point to what areas covered by this book are actively studied (and where) and why this is not original research, Jguk 07:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In which case, Keep. As an example, http://www.spinnoff.com/zbb/ shows most of these hobbies in active "study" - Ingolemo 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Your link shows that there are some people interested in Conworlds. It does not establish that this is a suitable textbook for learning about them - in particular, is it really a textbook? Jguk 17:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Conworlds have suffered much from Wikibooks recently. There is currently much objection on Wikibooks to writing about video games, even in an educational context... and many video games take place in conworlds. Fantasy and science fiction books also qualify as conworlds. It is possible that there should be a policy against them to preempt their fans from overrunning this wiki... but I am not sure yet. Meanwhile, I do think that the content in Conworld could be reorganised into a textbook (the main issue being to follow Naming policy) about constructed worlds. The question then is not whether or not it is a textbook, but whether we want this type of textbook on the wiki. --Kernigh 02:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per WhiteKnight's comments. Also, I do not believe that a textbook on constructing worlds particularly opens the door for hosting of constructed worlds, any more than (eg.) a book on writing fiction would open the door to hosting novels.  One is clearly an educational text while the other is not. Irrevenant 11:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep or tranwiki to wikipedia Wikisquared 21:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Kept. No votes to delete, and no votes cast in over a week. I'll archive this discussion in a week or so. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)