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 redirect to Minecraft. There is a lot of discussion here, but the general consensus is that the topic is relevant (though people differ by how much), and may be notable. However, there is more weight that independent notability has not been clearly demonstrated, so a redirect is merited. If there's content that's worth merging, it can be added from the history. I'd recommend putting a recreation through AFC if any user feels they can demonstrate stand alone notability in reliable sources. I would be happy to move this content to the draftspace/userspace upon request (though it isn't deleted, so anyone can do so on their own initiative). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Redstone (Minecraft) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete per WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE and failing WP:GNG. Largely sourced to game guide pages, and Redstone and its unique gameplay is already discussed in the main article for Minecraft. A standalone article WP:SPLIT does not appear to be necessary, as most of the additional information added in this article is just patch notes. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 18:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Restore Redirect to Minecraft, which is what it existed as previously. There are some mentions of it in reliable sources that are not just game guides, as it is a major element of the game, but nothing that would justify needing it to be WP:SPLIT from the main article. Rorshacma ( talk) 18:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep — I think the article could definitely be improved and expanded to talk more about how "redstone engineering" has been used as a form of building working electronics completely within Minecraft. Paintspot Infez ( talk) 19:01, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment - That concept is already discussed in the main Minecraft article under the "Education" heading, though. And like I said, I don't see that section needing to be Split off into its own article when it can be, and already is, easily discussed in the appropriate main article. Rorshacma ( talk) 19:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete (redirect) as a non-notable item in a video game failing WP:GNG with insufficient reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS. The content about redstone creations is sourced but not specific to redstone itself and can be in the game's article as relevant and does not need a split. Otherwise, it's gamecruft. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Hellknowz: Regarding your second point, if that is the case then you are suggesting a merge. In this case deletion is inappropriate as it will remove attribution of contributions. Polyamorph ( talk) 09:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No, I am not suggesting a merge. Minecraft article already covers redstone creations with good sources. There are no sources and no content I consider worth merging here. This is gamecruft with dubious sources -- it's all tutorials and update notes. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 09:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks for clarifying. Polyamorph ( talk) 10:20, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep (but revert to draft) - I agree with User:Paintspot, I think it is a significant portion of the game that could be worthy of it's own article over time, and I feel the Minecraft article is a little bloated with trying to approach all of Minecraft's huge scope of many different subcommunties (e.g. Redstone, Building) in addition to discussing the game itself. However, I can appreciate that keeping it in the mainspace for now may not be the best thing to do, so I suggest that it gets reverted to draft form. That way it can get improved upon over time and eventually, when it is encyclopedic enough (and hence passes WP:GNG) can be reaccepted into the mainspace. I believe the same is fair to Netherite and Iron Golem (had it not been recently deleted). Squid45 ( talk) 20:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • See WP:AMOUNT. —   HELLKNOWZ   ▎ TALK 21:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete (redirect) unless the article can be properly expanded. I do see the potential in such an article (there's tons of stuff people have made with redstone that got large media coverage), but until then there's no reason for a split. ~ Dissident93 ^{( talk)} 20:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Minecraft: Not in and of itself notable, but is a notable part of the Minecraft game Ed talk! 20:59, 15 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge/redirect to Minecraft, clearly relevant search term. The construction of in-game logic and more complex circuits is eminently notable backed up by relevant sources. Polyamorph ( talk) 08:39, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - The topic does not currently establish notability. Given the prevalence of articles based on the various insane contraptions built in the game, I wonder if there are enough reliable sources to maybe make an article based around that instead. TTN ( talk) 16:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete: No evidence of stand-alone notability, fails GNG/NFICTION. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 ( talk) 21:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep.Keep article. but stub it. 110.137.157.179 ( talk) 03:55, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete/Redirect. I can't think really of much content that could be placed on this page apart from WP:GAMECRUFT, and I say this as a Minecraft Wiki admin, as you can see most of this article is just a summary of the history section of the MC wiki page for redstone. The fact that there is a large community around redstone would be better placed at the Minecraft article, as that is a reception to the game itself, and doesn't need a non-notable split.   Nixinova    T    C   22:47, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• tentative Keep as an entity with some out-of-universe relevance and hence sourcing. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 23:49, 21 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Tentative draft as this has some serious potential (I'm fairly sure Redstone is notable enough in its own right) but the article isn't quite there yet and needs some better sources. Harmonia per misericordia. OmegaFallon ( talk) 19:35, 22 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Sure, it may be a notable part of the game but not notable enough for its own article unlike Creeper

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.