Wikibooks:Votes for deletion

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

	Wikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussion	Administrative Help	Announcements	Permissions	Page Deletion	Featured Books
Reading Room	Administrative Assistance	Bulletin Board	Requests for Permissions	Deletion — Undeletion	Nominations

Introduction

1. Please review Wikibooks:Deletion policy before nominating pages for deletion.
2. Please review Wikibooks:Decision making to understand the processed used for judging the outcome.
3. To challenge a deletion decision, see Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion.
4. If you want to transwiki pages in other languages, see Wikibooks:Pages to be transwikied.
5. All pages marked with for deletion with {{vfd}} are automatically placed in Category:Votes for deletion.
6. Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion here.

What is this page?

This page provides a place for the Wikibooks community to debate whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not. Discussion is open to all users, and you may offer alternatives to keeping or deleting. Please be prepared to defend your nominations, reasons and arguments. Simple votes will be ignored when judging what the outcome is. Well thought out reasons and arguments are considered the best; comments by very new or anonymous users, or by single-purpose accounts may be disregarded or weighed lightly, depending on their content. Numbers will not necessary have a high impact on the outcome, as consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments.

Nominating content for deletion

Please add new deletion nominees by creating a new section at the bottom of this page with a link to the module in the heading and a justification for the nomination. Also place the {{vfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{vfd}} goes on the top-level page. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Closing debates

After a minimum of one week & once the outcome is clear (by the time taken and level of participation), the discussion is closed with a statement on the decision. If the nominated book or module survived, add a {{vfd-survived|page=PageName}} to its talk page, and remove {{vfd}} from the module. The following templates should be used to "close" the VfD with {{subst:Closed|1=Outcome and ~~~~ to sign}} under the heading and {{subst:End closed}} at the end of the section. Only administrators can delete content. If consensus is to delete, but the book has salvageable content, add {{Impending Doom}} so anyone who wants a copy of the content can do so before it is deleted.

Icons used to identify a person's position

{{subst:icon|keep}} - you believe the nomination should be kept rather then deleted

{{subst:icon|delete}} - you agree that the nomination should be deleted

{{subst:icon|merge}} - you believe the nomination should be merged with another book

{{subst:icon|redirect}} - you believe the nomination should be redirected to another module

{{subst:icon|transwiki}} - you believe the nomination should be deleted after being moved to a more appropriate wiki

{{subst:icon|comment}} - if you need to express or clarify anything which may not be clearly any of the above options

{{subst:icon|info}} - if you're offering information what has been missing from the discussion

Contents 1 Modern History/Beginning of the Cold War/Post-War German Orientation 2 Sufism/Nasrudin 3 Towards A Better America 4 What does it take to be a competent server 5 Landan 6 A Mathematical Model of the Mind 7 Competitive Programming 8 Learn Hebrew 9 Relativity_-_Advanced 10 Final Destruction Tutorial

[edit] Modern History/Beginning of the Cold War/Post-War German Orientation

This is apparently an essay replete with WB:OR, and it was suggested that it be moved to Academia Wikicity. I don't know whether they've done so, but it's been tagged since May 2007. It looks like lots of content, so I hesitate to delete. I'd suggest tagging it for cleanup, and trying to get is properly sourced.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete , possibly even speedy since it's been tagged for so long. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment - see here, where an IP claiming to be that of the author blanked the page saying he wished the content to be deleted, but has since reconsidered. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 18:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete It is indeed an essay. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Sufism/Nasrudin

This was suggested to get moved to Wikisource. I can barely make sense of this. It seems that Nasrudin is a fictional character, used here to create little stories that teach a lesson, which is briefly interpreted for each one. I don't see how this is a textbook, nor how this isn't original research. Wikisource doesn't want it because "It is unclear how much of the Sufism material is is the work of Nasrudin, and how much is commentary. The author of material here needs to be clearly identified, and previously published. Eclecticology 09:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)" Apparently this has survived a VFD, but I've missed it in the archives.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete - agree that this is original research. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep (wow). These really should be compared with parables or fables as far as Sufism is concerned. Certainly Nasrudin' stories as seen as quite valid by many & from time to time get quite wide coverage. It is definitely not original research (I have a copy of a Nasrudin book from many years ago!) --Herby ^{talk thyme} 08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - reading the stories I think some may be inventions. I'll dig out my book & check when I get a chance. The "interpretations" are "interesting" - maybe they need some work but equally maybe not! Nasrudin stories (as I understand it) are intended to be rather Zen like --Herby ^{talk thyme} 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Over half the article is interpretations that mean nothing.

"Not really," said the goat. "Your name is written inside the cover." Interpretations

1. Talking animals are a dime a dozen; but a goat that can read, now THAT is a miracle.

It looks like an excuse to write up weird things that make no sense in combination with an obscure piece of fiction. 12.107.188.130 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep I've seen many of these before. While many are confusing they're certainly not original research but I'm only refering to the ones I've heard of before. Interesting. --ЗAНИA ^talk 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep --Panic (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep but eliminate the interpretations unless they're sourced to someone.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment If they are pre-existing stories, they may be better suited for wikisource then here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - Right, I forgot we figured out that they're not original. So if we elimiate interpretation, then all that's left is the stories themselves, and it should be moved to Wikisource - note that this solves the concerns raised by Eclecticology. So this is a Transwiki to Wikisource.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

How are the interpretations any different to interpretations to books like the Harry Potter thing? Or interpretations given for Shakespeare, etc.?--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

A brief scan suggests to me, as someone whose never heard of any of these, that the difference between this and books like Harry Potter is context. Its not made reasonably clear what is the proverbs/fable/whatever being used and what is the interpretations being provided. This is probably why others who have commented on it, have said it looks like original research or works of fiction which neither belong here. If your suggesting this is Annotated Text as I suspect you are, than that is not quickly apparent, so either someone should clean it up or ought to be deleted. --darklama 00:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

KeepBut it needs some cleaning up. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Towards A Better America

This is a relatively new book (I found it while removing the {{new book}} tag from it). It's had an NPOV warning on it for a while, and taking a quick browse through, I tend to agree with that. It's a border-line case, and because of it's young age I suppose there is a potential for this to improve. Either way, I figure it's better to discuss it here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Very Strong Delete This book is awful. It's written from a right wing point of view, contains nothing to back up its facts and doesn't even try to analyse the other side of the arguement (i.e. on the 'illegal immigration page). --ЗAНИA ^talk 20:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Who says this is a "better" America? Delete for all it's worth.
• I found myself writing a long rant about how inappropriate this book is, which was probably inappropriate in itself. Delete this crap. (Though I do love the quote: "even Cubans have a higher life expectancy than Americans"... those commie bastards!) Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - Little content and what content it does have is well...'dubious'. It might end up a good book, but I highly doubt it. ChessCreator (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete - I think there's much to be said on the subject, and I suppose it might be possible to do it w/ NPOV, but this isn't.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 00:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I won't vote, but will say this: the issues identified are real issues for the USA (and, in fact, many other countries), but are contentious and the book appears to violate NPOV requirements. However, it has only been going for a few months and perhaps deserves more of a chance. If anything, its main problem appears to be one of WB:OR - it sounds like it is attempting to explore new territory, rather than presenting knowledge, and on that basis perhaps the Towards A Better... series should be questioned. Webaware ^talk 01:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment They are real issues but they only present one side of the arguement - i.e. they claim that "immigrants cost the economy millions per year" but don't mention the fact that most immigrants don't claim benefits, most immigrants pay taxes and most immigrants are more productive than regular workers for example. Also NPOV is expressed when the writer expresses suprise that a socialist country (Cuba, France, etc.) has better healthcare than the USA - what would you expect? The USA doesn't even have universal healthcare. If the book is quickly cleaned up and presents both arguements then fine but this doesn't look like it'll happen. --ЗAНИA ^talk 19:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

  You're basically saying, then, that it's incomplete... {{sofixit}}. (FWIW, even the silly Cuba statement has some merit - the USA likes to measure things by GDP, and Cuba ranks 83 compared to the USA's 10; by Human Development Index, Cuba ranks 51 compared to USA's 12; and yet, USA citizens can't all access good health care.) Webaware ^talk 23:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Even after I added "drugs", it's still missing several important issues. However, several of its claims are weak and biased. The best example (worst example) I could find was on the illegal immigration page, when in its "What's wrong with it?" section, it listed as an item "It's Against the Law, claiming "By not enforcing certain laws, the government loses credibility and respect". So prior to June 26, 2003, the government lost credibility and respect whenever sodomy laws weren't enforced in states that had them? Prior to 1965, the government lost respect and credibility when it didn't enforce Jim Crow laws? Anyone else want to comment on this aspect? Cilantrohead (talk) 08:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  This is what I was talking about. It's possible to do w/ NPOV, but would be prohibitively difficult. The main way around these problems is to attribute those points of view. So it's not just that the author says the gov't loses credibility, but rather that <insert authoritative source> says that the gov't loses credibility. Then we also run into problems of balance between the various people who might comment on that issue, and it ends up being unwieldy and bloated. I think the best solution if one wants to fix it instead of scrap it is to instead have 3 sections: Toward A Better America/The Republican's Dream, Toward A Better America/The Democrat's Dream and Toward A Better America/The American's Dream where you can unapologetically state three different visions. Then a conclusion that tries to present some conclusions of leading modern political theorists (so it's not the author's own synthesis) which compromises on all three. If there's someone willing to do this, I suspect they'd rather start over anyways.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

  That sounds like you have a plan. Just one suggestion: instead of calling them "The Republican's Dream" and "The Democrat's Dream", we should call them "The Conservative Dream" and "The Liberal Dream", since there are some conservative Democrats (like Bill Clinton). How do you picture "The American's Dream" as coming out? Cilantrohead (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

  Both terms would be confusing. "Liberal" Dream would be confusing as liberal (US meaning refers to left politics focusing on social liberalism. The rest of the world uses liberal to mean right wing focusing on economical liberalism) has a very different meaning to the rest of the world. But surely all "liberals" and conservatives have different opinions especially in American politics where the main policies of a party are determined by the party leader?--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - If the intended target audience is right wingers than I don't see what's wrong with this book being written from a right wing perspective. However I think the title probably needs to be change to remove "better" from its title and to make its intentions clearer. Maybe "America Tomorrow - A Right Wing Perspective" or "America Tomorrow" if its intended audience is more broad. Also problems with NPOV shouldn't be a reason to delete, but rather a reason to improve it so it is neutral. --darklama 22:27, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Keep it, but its needs to be expanded with more detail. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] What does it take to be a competent server

This reads more like a blog, or perhaps a very informal pamphlet, but definitely not a textbook.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep for now, to soon for a VfD just because it's very empty. Subject and content wise it fits Wikibooks standards, the only thing I dislike is the title.... As for the writing, it is indeed different but not so an uncommon approach, we have also to keep in mind that the creator only edited it 2 times (24 April 2008) and on the same day, we will always have orphaned works from time to time but we should help contributors and keep them working. One very important point is that if a work is initiated even as a simple stub in no instance is the originator obligated to finish the work, we can only give incentives for participation. In any case I think that we need a book on that topic and don't see any reason for a deletion for now. --Panic (talk) 03:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep Agree. --ЗAНИA ^talk 23:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Neutral I don't vote to delete it only because the book is so young and there is the potential (although it's becoming increasingly unlikely) that the author will return to improve it, or a new author will like the idea and adopt it. I added {{New book}} to it, so that should give it some exposure. Give it a little while and if it stays at it's current condition, we delete it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment FYI this was originally on WP, but they didn't want it. The author on the same day copied it to both here and to WikiHow, where it appears to have received more contributions. I think its unlikely that the version here will receive any more contributions by its original author. --darklama 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Landan

as delete. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I found this book while looking through Category:Featured book. It most certainly is not and never has been featured. This book is highly confusing to me. On the font page there is a template that points to the "Landan Wikibooks" (there is no "Landan" project), although the link points to the Esperanto one. The link to the Wikipedia article, w:Landan, points to a page which doesn't exist, and was never created. Half the pages in the TOC point to pages in the Dutch book. Doing a google search for "Landan" brings up this book, and a number of people named Landan, but no information about a language. This book was written almost exclusively by anonymous editors (which is not necessarily an indictment). There is a Wikiversity course on v:Topic:Landan which was written by the same authors. Frankly, if this isn't OR or some kind of webhost violation, then it's a hoax. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC) I've just learned that the same user, User:Jfrankc08, has created a bunch of nonsense pages on wikiversity too. I think some of them are going to be slated for deletion too. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Delete --AdRiley (talk) 08:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Delete - weird! Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC) Delete This book has interwikis to the Dutch book on he, de, fr and na language editions. This probably is either a mistake, but equally likely to be a purposeful hoax. Either way, we don't want it.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 23:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC) I'm half-wondering whether maybe "Landan" is the dutch word for "Dutch". I don't think that's the case, however. The landan pages are named "Lesse 1", "Lesse 2", while the dutch ones are named "Les 1", "Les 2", etc. Also, the pictures in the book appear to be of Paris, which is decidedly French-speaking. This whole thing is very weird. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC) The Dutch refer to their language as Nederlands. I'm positive it's a prank article. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk | email | contribs ) 22:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC) Delete If Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about it, than there isn't enough information to qualify for its coverage in a book. --darklama 01:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Delete -- It is a joke. There's no language called Landan. Possibly the original editor intended to create a Wikibook for a new language and decided to copy elements of the Dutch textbook to use as a foundation for his book. Either way it should be deleted unless the original editor can provide some kind of sources or proof of its existance. --ЗAНИA talk 22:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Delete-This is ridiculous, maybe its a dialect of Dutch but Dutch is my mother tounge and I've never heard of it before. Belachelijk! (Red4tribe (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] A Mathematical Model of the Mind

Original research. Recent Runes (talk) 18:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to being original research, I can also certify that the material here is almost entirely bogus. The math is shoddy at best, and the conclusions that are reached aren't even remotely related to the equations that are derived here. Rubbish. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:57, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete I think either the guy Gareth-Lee Meredith is crazy, or there is a somebody else trying to discredit him by writing claptrap under his name. Recent Runes (talk) 22:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete That's the most original application of Pythagoras I have ever seen. --Jomegat (talk) 00:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete --AdRiley (talk) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

This is Gareth-Lee here. The subject is well-known actually. It was first concieved by Arthur Eddington, who called them spacetime theories. Wiki has a specific article claiming that they are not pseudoscience, but a protoscience. If it is the quality of the work in question, then i apologise.

Comment I know Eddington wrote extensively on Physics & Cosmology, but I am not aware that he ever published anything significant about the mind. Regardless of the quality of the material, it contravenes the Wikibooks policy on original research (WB:OR). Ultimately this is why it will have to go, sorry. Recent Runes (talk) 00:22, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you refuting the fact that spacetime theories are not in use? I ask you to google 'spacetime theories - wiki' - and you will find my reference about Arthur Eddington. I think he was inspired by his work on relativitistic maps.

Either way, if you feel this need to be deleted, then go right ahead. Nothing i can do that will stop you.

Gareth-Lee Meredith

Comment It would help a bit if you were able to provide definite references to any actual publications by Eddington himself on spacetime and the mind. So far I have only found anecdotal claims from your hints and suggestions. The whole subject in so far as it exists seems far too speculative to present from a neutral point of view in a textbook. Of course the final decision on this book will be made by the Wikibooks community not me alone. Recent Runes (talk) 20:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete This is original research in its current form. On Wikibooks we have to report what others have written, we can offer interpretations but cannot use our own theories. There are indeed space-time theories of mind, see for instance: The speed of thought, Empirical Geometrical theory and there are plenty of QM theories of mind ie:Many minds interpretation of QM. QM Spin models but there is no reference to these in the text. Why not research these established theories and add them as a section in the Consciousness studies book? RobinH (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Competitive Programming

Nominating this for deletion. It's an old book but doesn't appear to be much of a book. Books normally have more than a cover page. --ЗAНИA ^talk 21:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete a long-term stub that is obviously not attracting interest from new editors. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:01, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I don't see a problem with this book. There appears to be room for expansion and I don't think it would be difficult for someone interested to do so. Books are not paper, they can be as short or as long as it takes to cover the subject for the intended audience. Other short books of this form have been brought up in the past only to be kept. Books are not required to have cover pages and if its short enough, splitting a book up into multiple pages doesn't really make sense. --darklama 22:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep I agree with darklama. I don't see anything wrong with this book. It is a stub and I thought we don't delete stubs. --AdRiley (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep --Panic (talk) 02:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Learn Hebrew

There already is another Hebrew Wikibook. This book is a stub and hasn't been edited for more than half a year. Ētamš (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Keep - Wikibooks allow more than one book on a subject to exist. There isn't anything particularly wrong with this stub, this book has a good outline of what it intends to cover just someone has to fill in the details. --darklama 20:54, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge-Merge with Hebrew (Red4tribe (talk) 01:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC))

Merge Hasn't this issue been brought up before? I could swear that we discussed this exact page before and decided to merge it into Hebrew? I am not going to look through all the archives tonight, but I'm decently certain this issue has already been raised and settled. Let's slap the merge templates on them both. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

You created the book outline Whiteknight from what I saw. --darklama 02:07, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Details why are here User_talk:Benzvi --AdRiley (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

With as many edits as I have, and as long as I've been here, you can't expect me to remember every thing I do! At least I remembered that somehow this page was discussed before, that's something. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge --AdRiley (talk) 07:36, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment The problem is that there is almost nothing to merge, the information is so little and already exists in Hebrew. --Ētamš (Talk • Contribs) 12:26, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete Etams is right there is hardly any content to merge and the other book already covers it. --AdRiley (talk) 15:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Hebrew, this project has not evolved, it stalled in August 2007 by default any similar subject books should at least be targeted to a merge vote from time to time if abandoned, in this case I'm with Ētamš there isn't much content to merge, so this would make it an easy merge. Still if no one takes to the task one have to remember than notification of merge may even bring someone forward to rethink the project... --Panic (talk) 02:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. Yes there's nothing wrong with this book per se and there's no reason why two books on a particular topic can't coexist on Wikibooks but there is nothing really in this book and no reason why it needs to be separate. If the book were about Business Hebrew or Hebrew for Advanced Students then it would merit a second book but that isn't the case here. --ЗAНИA ^talk 20:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Relativity_-_Advanced

This book is not in the format of a book, it is a quick summary of a field. Much of its content is already covered in Special relativity and it should be part of Special relativity or General relativity. It is also not "advanced". RobinH (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

-Keep, but it needs to be cleaned up (Red4tribe (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

[edit] Final Destruction Tutorial

A strategy guide/tutorial for playing the online game Final Destruction, which is outside Wikibooks' scope. Original research, not textbook material, not something that would be used in an educational setting. --darklama 18:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete. As above. RobinH (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-Keep, but someone will need to clean it up (Red4tribe (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Delete per WB:GUIDE  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete per Mike.lifeguard. Adambro (talk) 21:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Hoogli (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)