Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Minecraft resource gathering

Nomination
In my opinion,listcruft. Also,this is my first Rfd,so do be honest. And look at lots of the subpages. Like Minecraft resource gathering/Meat.96.18.219.55 (discuss) 18:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC) UPDATE: Every sub-page is also in this Rfd.96.18.219.55 (discuss) 18:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Debate

 * KEEP. This is not a reason to delete the book. Those pages can easily be improved and I don’t see a reason to delete them either.-Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: This user worked on the book,so is probably biased to keep. 96.18.219.55 (discuss) 23:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for approving my point that the book can be improved. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 09:16, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment 2:Electric Boogaloo: This user is behind the account Your favorite emperor which has been indefinitely blocked for making harassing edits. 96.18.219.55 (discuss) 15:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC) (see his talk page.)
 * To the IP address: don't accuse users without proof. If you have, you can ask for a CheckUser. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * To Leaderboard: Here's some evidence for it here. 96.18.219.55 (discuss) 16:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Right OK. can comment on this; I don't have the evidence to do so. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have already explained here. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I'm not a fan of this Wikibook in it's current state. There are a number of obvious issues with this book. However, does it qualify for the Deletion policy? I don't think it does:
 * The book is not clearly abandoned.
 * The book is useful, albeit at a bare minimum level. I do get useful information from most subpages, despite being incredibly spartan. That is to say, if I knew absolutely nothing about the game reading this would be confusing and omit significant amounts of useful information, but technically I would probably still be better at the game for having read it.
 * While many of the pages are poorly written, I don't see anything that is clearly nonsense or wrong. Many contributors here are not native English speakers or are still learning, and they can still make valued contributions
 * Books generally contain a number of subpages. The only list I can find in this book is the table of contents, and I don't think that can be called listcruft without questioning the scope of the book in general.
 * With that said, I do not think this Wikibook is a good candidate for deletion, though specific subpages of dubious value may be. However If I may make a modest proposal here, perhaps this wikibook would benefit from a change in scope. Change the book namespace from Minecraft resource gathering to simply Minecraft, and make the resources subpages of that. This would encourage editors to flesh out other uses for items beyond gathering, allowing the subpages to surpass stub status more easily. This change would have to be discussed before being made, but it's one I feel could lead it in a positive direction. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm. Definitely an interesting idea. I would like to state that when I first created the book, I imagined it would contain information about gathering & using resources not just in the latest version but describing the changes throughout versions maybe starting from 1.0 since the alphas and betas might be a mess to describe in this book. I’m not really sure it’s a good idea to have one large book containing all the information about Minecraft rather than separate books describing the different aspects of it. PS is it possible to import information from the Minecraft wiki and work on it’s would it break existing pages? -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 05:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , sorry for not pinging you. -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 12:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You're good! If you think that would help improve the book for readers, I'm all for it.
 * As for imports, it would primarily depend on what licence the wiki being imported from uses, and some other factors. If it's the Fandom wiki for example, that won't work since it's using a CC-BY-NC-SA licence, which is not compatible with Wikibooks licencing. CC-BY-SA and other more permissive licences should be OK though. You can make requests at Requests for import. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , thank you very much! The wiki is indeed a fandom so it seems that it can’t be imported. Can I use it as a source as long as I don’t copy from it? -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Per Strategy guides It's generally preferred to cite reliable secondary or sources tertiary sources. Obvious information from the game can be simply used as a primary source. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 15:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * OK I understand. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 Happy New Year 🎄❄️⛄️🎇 (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Mbrickn raises some good points. Even if the book were abandoned and unfinished, it could be merged into a wikibook named "Minecraft" or something. 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll have to concur with Mbrickn. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:46, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'm the nominator but logged in. Tgregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A question. You only created this account last night. It seems quite unlikely that a brand new editor would start by requesting deletion of a book. Have you edited here using a different account? MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 09:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No. I am that IP address that nominated the book. Tgregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)