Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Minesweeper

Minesweeper
I've exported this page, and I'm getting it ready for StrategyWiki. Based on the book content, it's a strategy guide for a video game, which isn't suitable on this site. Some of the pages won't survive the transwiki, since they aren't suitable for StrategyWiki either. The best case is that there may be a mathematical importance to the game, but it's not at that level of quality and would require someone to salvage it. --Sigma 7 (talk) 16:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment I find it unpalatable that there's a distinction made between this and How to Solve the Rubik's Cube/How To Solve Any NxNxN Rubik's Cube.  The books have the same scope and wish to discuss strategy for succeeding at a puzzle.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The distinction meant to be be made by policy WB:GUIDE, as I understand it, is between a scholarly book about a video game and a walkthrough of a video game &mdash; the latter being the intended target of WB:GUIDE, so I gather based on the discussions that led to that policy. See especially here.  Looking over this book, it seems to me to be very clearly a walkthrough, and therefore exactly within the intended target of WB:GUIDE.  The Rubik's books seem to me to be scholarly in character, so that they would not be walkthroughs even if Rubik's Cube were an exclusively virtual-reality game.  --Pi zero (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That said, Minesweeper the game is very much a logic puzzle except for the very few stages where one must guess, and could be discussed as a scholarly work of logic. The fact that this is not done, but instead we are simply given patterns to memorize, is what takes it out of the scholarly category, in my opinion. Chazz (talk) 22:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Transwiki completed - Minesweeper. One of the pages didn't survive (it amounted to "try playing a self-imposed challenge"), and a few others got renamed to the standards on that wiki. For those that feel the Wikibook could be kept, there appears to be some historical and analytical information shown on the wikipedia page, which could be academic enough if the book is worked on.  --Sigma 7 (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)