Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Wikibooks Discussion Rooms

Assistance	Discussions	Requests	Proposals
General | Technical | Administrative (Usurps/Renaming)	General | Projects	Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Features	Featured books | Policies/Guidelines

[edit] English Grammar 2

It looks like an encyclopedia article. A lot of red links, and all links in the book go to either English in Use subpages, or short lists of expressions. It's organized horribly and it doesn't seem to me like it could help anyone. Also, as far as I can tell, there is no reason for English Grammar "2". Mr. NMC (talk) 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. There is a confusion because it is not decided what English grammars there should be. I think there should be grammars for 3 levels: A (beginners), B and C (highest), and English in Use is a level C grammar. There was only a level C grammar before, and I think this is why these who want to write a simpler grammar, don't know where to contribute. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment. Unfortunately the only criterion I know to decide whether something qualifies to be a grammar, is that it must be in general complete. I don't know when something written about grammar qualifies to be a grammar, and when not. Tkorrovi (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Because no one has proposed any solution of what to do with that grammar, and because at least as it is, it doesn't fit to the English bookshelf, there is no reason to keep it. Also that action may motivate at least some editors to think what the structure of the English grammars and the English bookshelf should be. I use this opportunity to thank all these who made very good contributions to English in Use, I think with these the English in Use is already now a good and ready to publish English grammar, but unfortunately it is not yet clearly decided that it would be a grammar (as a separate book). Tkorrovi (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't really see a need for this book. There should certainly be many different books focusing on the English language (books for learners, a general book on grammar, specific books for Business English, etc.) but there doesn't seem a need for many solely grammar books. I would hesitate to delete this though because it is very extensive and some material should be copied to the English in Use book. My vote is not to delete for now because the material is useful and because there isn't an immediate need to delete this content.--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep The page sucks, but the information would be usable down the road. Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep The best outcome for the page/content. It doesn't fit into what should be deleted and has useful content, content that is somewhat redundant but distinct to what already exists in another project. It would be easy to merge it into several other books even books covering the relationship of other languages to English. --Panic (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Physics with transforms

Please note, this book is not very well structured the pages are: Physics with transforms - new invention, Physics with transforms:Table of Contents, Physics with transforms:Explanation & How to Use, Physics with transforms:The Transform, Physics with transforms:About the Author. I have moved the pages under to be together under the title Physics with transforms. I have the following problems with this book, it seems to have an uncertain copyright to me, at least some of the same text seems to be at this page, where it doesn't seem to be released under GFDL or Commons. It also seems to be the original research of the author which he would like to reproduce here. Overall it doesn't seem like textbook material to me, and I think it should be deleted. Thenub314 (talk) 18:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete or Userify Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Regarding the copyright it seems that version that is available on that external page is by the same person that contributed the Wikibook's version (on the bottom of the About Me section it references Wikibooks). This seem to verify that the work was contributed by the original author. --Panic (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment I noticed this, but have two problems with accepting that it can be released here. First we have no way to verify these are in fact the same person, even if they probably are. Secondly, the page at his website is not released under a free license, and (at least I thought) the same text cannot be released under two different copyrights, not even by the same author. Thenub314 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It can. A text can be re-released with any license by it's own author (or copyright holder), even contradictory licenses.

I think you are referring to the concept, that can seem contradictory, that an author can't take back work released under a free license (for example GFDL). You must take in consideration that the license is valid for a given copy of the work it is attached to (if all copies bearing the free license somehow disappear) legally the a non-user (a person that hasn't a copy with a license granting him the right, like the GFDL, a use and distribution license) doesn't have the option to re-release the work. (Electronically this is very complex and hard to verify if the work's versions are identical). To simplify it, think about printed books.

Free license in this case mustn't be a public domain license, in a PD situation all rights revert to the public. --Panic (talk) 07:36, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Physics with transforms:The Transform had a {{delete}} tag added to it by you, Thenub. Please don't nominate books and then label them with a speedy delete or query. Then they come up for speedy deletion and if an admin forgets or doesn't see they were nominated, they can end up deleting them and looking like they were disregarding the VfD. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 21:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Sorry about that, it was a mistake on my part. I was trying to decided what to do with these pages treating them one time before, then decided they should be treated as a single book. I intended to remove the two that I tagged after I posted the pages here, but became a bit distracted. Thenub314 (talk) 07:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete There's no way to know that Jariep is the same author as the website's creator. The website's content is copyrighted and no license compatible with Wikibooks is displayed on that site. Currently the Wikibooks only has structural elements (about the author, table of contents, etc.). Nobody will be able to add additional content to the book from this other website unless an OTRS submission is received. Given that and the lack of meaningful content, I don't see any reason to keep it. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Our Wikibooks:Deletion policy mentions m:Avoid Copyright Paranoia. The website mentioned above has a page that currently says "Retrieved from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics_with_transforms:About_the_Author".

That means that someone copied this book from Wikibooks to that website, right?

When the original author posts a book to Wikibooks, we assume by default that author wants us to keep that book at Wikibooks -- no matter who copies that book to some other website -- right?

If you convince me that the copying probably went the other direction, from that website to Wikibooks, then I will change my vote to "delete". --DavidCary (talk) 02:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That website has every page of the book on it, complete, while the Wikibook has the same structure developing with little copied over or filled in other than the "about the author" page. The content on the pages is composed of images, which do not exist on Wikibooks. Take a look at the explanation page in particular. Everything on that page is an image, including the copyright at the bottom, dated 1971 and 1991. I'm pretty sure Wikibooks didn't exist at that time. The page this corresponds with, Physics with transforms/Explanation & How to Use, was created in April 2004. Say the website is simply dating the creation date and not when it was put online. You have the other links on the Wikibooks site that either have pages with only a table of contents on them or that haven't even been created. How can someone copy content from Wikibooks that doesn't exist? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought that we were passed assuming that it was an copyrights issue. A quick fix would be attempting to contact the Wikibookian/Author, but as is I particularly don't see the relevance of the subject (and think that Thenub314 may be right on the original research bit) because of this I also agree with Adrignola when mentioning that as is the book has no content and probably never will (if the original contributor and presumable author doesn't contest the deletion and finishes the work, last edit was in 2004).

I would readily join you to block a deletion based in unvalidated suspicions of copyright infringement (I have always been strongly opposed to bring that point into a VFD, it should be resolved in the book context) as it always does promote band-wagoning for deletion. In any case you should rethink the keep vote based only on what is there or if you have a strong opinion on it try to reach the Wikibookian or author, or assure those voting for deletion that the book will have a future. --Panic (talk) 04:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I have now tagged the book with the missing tag of "Possible copyright infringement" and even if the book survives the VFD the tag shouldn't be removed until the issue is resolved. --Panic (talk) 05:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

PS: DavidCary the template imposes a deletion in 7 days, that change hasn't been subjected to community approval. The discussion on it on the Wikibooks talk:Deletion_policy#Vote and changes. It has been a while I have used it and only now noticed that the opposed deep changes to the approved policy hadn't been addressed. That should be corrected (and it would be best if I wasn't the one doing those corrections). --Panic (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that I put a notice on the author's talk page on August 10. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

If anyone still has an issue with the copyright status please look into Talk:Physics with transforms#possible copyright infringement. --Panic (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Phaehrae

[edit] Conphilosophy

An abandoned stub with suspect title and almost no content. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If this goes, then probably the entire Conworld (Constructed World) project should go... but despite the silly name, I see this as being somewhat useful: SF writers must routinely generate worlds, and if there is any real content in this series it could be useful in that endeavor. Tentative Keep Chazz (talk) 20:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments both on the series as a whole, and on that particular book:

• All but one of the series are, I believe, abandoned in the sense of having no regular contributors — the exception being Conlang, which is also more developed than the rest of the series put together. (I'd have noticed regular contributors to the others, since they're all on my watchlist.)
• Even after that one is excepted, all the books in this series are not equally deletable. Being abandoned is, yet again, not in itself grounds for deletion. The (or at least a) relevant question is whether, if someone wanted to pick up one of these topics, the existing content would be helpful to them. As I recall, some of them do have some worthwhile substance — I have in mind Conworld and Conplanet, especially, with perhaps Conreligion coming in third on that score (but to make that call with confidence I'd have to go back over the whole set).
• The words conlang and conworld are pretty standard, but conphilosophy, conreligion, and even conplanet are less widely recognizable unless one happens to already be in the context of a discussion of conlangs or conworlds. (Conplanet is probably the third most standard, though.)
• If some of the more obscure and underdeveloped books in the series are seen here as a problem, they might be moved under the aegis of Conworld. If this were done to any of them, Conphilosophy would definitely be one such. (At the other end of the spectrum, Conlang is definitely standalone.)

--Pi zero (talk) 22:02, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Conmap has the same amount of content as this book and Consociety has even less. It's too bad that they aren't more developed, as it will create inconsistency to have some be under Conworld and some be standalone if these two or the one in question above face a serious threat of deletion. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] A Scientific Perspective of Philosophy

[edit] Emotions

Delete:

• Length: 470 words
• Low-quality content – judge for yourself
• Last substantive contribution: 13 December 2006
• First substantive contribution: 18 November 2006

--Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete , what is there is not NPOV, not very substantive, and abandoned. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment To me is a stub, with valid content. What where the NPOV issues you identified ? --Panic (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep It is a valid stub, since the NPOV issue was not clarified I think we should keep it. --Panic (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so let us be explicit about some of the sentences that are wrong:

• "Emotions are part of mental perception."
• "We have to be very thankful that most of us do posses emotions otherwise life would have been meaningless."
• "Life without emotions is not only unimaginable; it is unbearable."

--Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment These all seem to be incidental violations of NPOV, not difficult to eliminate. If there were an intrinsic POV-ness to the book, that would be another matter. There is a certain high-handedness to the way it presents its (I gather) neurobiological view of emotions, but that too could be readily fixed by actually saying that the book is presenting a neurobiological theory of emotions. --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

If the POV samples that I have listed from this 470 words-long text do not suffice, let us put the question the other way around, then: what NPOV quotations are you able to collect from the book such that they say anything substatial? How many words remain after the POVs are removed? I had a look at the book as a whole, and IMHO it is as a whole worth dumping. Its stub content is worthless, and it has no outline to provide for expansion.

An alternative to deleting the book is moving it to the userspace of its author: User:Jmoinian. The author already has several books in his userspace, of similar quality:

User:Jmoinian/Economy, User:Jmoinian/Oil, User:Jmoinian/Hijab, User:Jmoinian/Dogs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong on those sentences (I didn't check the context only what you wrote here).

Emotions are a mental state and the ability to perceive emotions on others is defined as empathy, that makes the affirmation that emotions are part of mental perception correct as they are an important part of the input we take from the real world to create our mental representation of reality (example of this is how we respond to different colors). All the other phrases are equally defensible and they don't seem to establish a specific point of view... --Panic (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The alternative to move it to the userspace must be created by a request from the user. It is not up to us. --Panic (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

It's rubbish, but I suggest we move it to be a module in Relationships which discusses similar topics Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stock

Delete:

• Length: 500 words
• Low-quality material: poorly written, with wholly scattered focus
• Last two substantive edits:
  • 25 December 2008[1]
  • 12 November 2006[2]

--Dan Polansky (talk) 11:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Is is a stub. It has some content, if there isn't no competing project were it can be merged or be substituted with, there is no reason for deletion. --Panic (talk) 18:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge This seems like something that should be merged into a larger book. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a possible target for the merge ? --Panic (talk) 01:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Wish I did. Had I one in mind I would have taken care of it to avoid the dilemma of deletion. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mandarin Chinese Grammar for Pimsleur Students

Beside others, I am the main contributer. Meanwhile, I see 2 major problems with this book. First, I think that its shear existance discourages the creation of a Mandarin Chinese Grammar handbook (which I find way more desirable for this Wiki project than a book that caters only to the users of a particular learning program). Second, there might occur copyright problems due to the commercial nature of the learning program. Please, delete. Stilfehler (talk) 13:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Only the last point could be a problem but you place it as a future possibility so I see no reason for a deletion. See Wikibooks:Deletion policy. I also strongly disagree that multiple books on a given subject (or closely related) can be a barrier for adding content, from practical experience I've always observed the opposite. --Panic (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Business Writing

[edit] The Use of English with Other Members of the Thai Academic Community among Dhurakij Pundit University’s Postgraduate Business Students

This scope of this book is too specific to be used as a textbook. Also, reading the abstract, this very much sounds like original research. Overall I do not feel it is suitable for inclusion. Thenub314 (talk) 09:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki A worthy project, but certainly more suited to Wikiversity, in my humble opinion. Chazz (talk) 18:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)