Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFD)
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions
Requests for (Un)deletion Archives
  • Close discussion with {{closed}}/{{end closed}}
  • RFDs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/FullPageName
  • RFUs should be moved to subpages at Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/FullPageName
  • Transclude subpage; remove after 7 days
Icon usage
  • {{subst:icon|info}} - important facts
  • {{subst:icon|keep}} - keep work
  • {{subst:icon|merge}} - merge work
  • {{subst:icon|transwiki}} - copy to another wiki
  • {{subst:icon|delete}} - delete work
  • {{subst:icon|redirect}} - delete and redirect
  • {{subst:icon|comment}} - neutral opinion


Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

  1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
  2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
  3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.


Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

High School Trigonometry, High School Engineering, High School Chemistry, High School Earth Science, High School Life Science, High School Biology, High School Calculus, High School Geometry, High School Probability and Statistics[edit]

We have received an OTRS ticket, number 2015011310024438, from the CK-12 Foundation requesting that these books (which are copied from CK-12) are properly attributed to them. The relevant text of the OTRS ticket, for those without access is:

"...I am a science associate with the ck-12 foundation. I'm writing on behalf of ck-12 in regards to the versions of our flexbooks you have published on the wikibooks site. To begin I should say that we are extremely pleased to be featured on your site and greatly appreciate you taking the time to import our texts. We would like to ask that you attribute our content using the guidelines present on the ck-12 website. We also ask that you add this attribution to the individual concept pages; I stumbled upon a few of them and was concerned until i went back to the book and chapter pages and saw the attribution."

I can confirm the email comes from CK-12 based on the mail headers, etc. In responding to this request I have reviewed the CK-12 attribution guidelines here and noted that their license is CC-BY-NC. This license is incompatible with Wikibooks. Specifically, it does not allow commercial use, and Wikibooks does. Given this, I believe we have no choice but to delete the books.

I, or any admin, could delete these after 7 days as a copyright violation without an RFD, but given that some of them are featured books, I am raising this RFD to encourage others to check my interpretation of the license issue is correct. Note that I have named the nine books that are obviously CK-12 copies, but this deletion requirement may apply to other books from the same source - I will add them hear if I identify more. Thanks. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

The importers of the content should also be notified and even admonished for such an extensive violation. Admins should do random content cross-pollination checks as they delete the pages by selecting some random bits of text and see if they find a match in other wikibook works. --Panic (discusscontribs) 14:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Note that this is more a violation of the terms of use than of copyright (in the consequence that it is an unauthorized relicensing of the works).
One thing that I've been thinking about is the WHY we can't have non-commercial content on Wikibooks. It seems counterproductive in the primary goal of creating free content and not an issue to any of the parts involved in the work we do here. It seems simply a political decision and we may need to revisit it as it needn't be so, any primary objections would be about cross pollination but as this instance proves in a connected world that argument is very weak. --Panic (discusscontribs) 23:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
The decision to only have material that was reusable for commercial reasons was made by the Wikimedia Foundation, it isn't something we can change locally unfortunately. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
This is quite interesting. A PDF of the CK-12 material was uploaded to Commons (here) in 2009. This is licensed with CC-BY-SA. It is therefore possible the material we have is permitted, if it was based on this older version. It'll need some more digging. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:21, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I am interested in proper copyright problems where some git copies and pastes things from elsewhere without any permission. The kind of nitty gritty isn't my concern and I would be all for providing whatever attribution they want and then ignoring the problem. If someone from the Foundation (the Wikimedia Foundation of the CK-12 Foundation) instructs us to delete then we should, otherwise we should just carry on as normal...--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 13:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It's annoying always having to find this in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, when are we going to take care of these books? Thanks. --atcovi (talk) 15:54, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

There are two choices: delete them, or retain them. If the latter, then every page has to have a URL linking back to the original source for attribution purposes as this has been demanded by the copyright owner. While interpretation of the "by attribution" part of the license is possible, I think the copyright holder is making a reasonable request as just providing attribution on , say, the main page of the book, is not really providing a clear link to the source. It is because of the need to edit the 100s of pages to do this that nobody has done it yet. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:55, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Could this be done by bot? Seems a simple though tedious task. Liam987 talk 19:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, easily - there's standard tasks in the pywikipedia bot framework to do this kind of thing (I used it before for adding reference sections and categories to books) and AWB could also be used. My bot has been out of service for quite a while but I could look into reviving it. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 12:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

The Wrestling Universe[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Wikibooks:Undergraduate Mathematics/Continuous function[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Wikibooks:Undergraduate Mathematics/Expectation/Expected value[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


This page is now redundant with the other pages in the Trignomentry book. It is also left unused , very little content and few contributors.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. No discussion on this issue? Or should I mark it for speedy? --Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
like this page has enough info to educate readers. It could also be left for expansion by a different user later on, what'd you think about this? (btw can you show the other pages with "very little content"?) --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Dinosaur Alphabet[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Pragmalinguistic peculiarities of English Slogan in Fashion Domain[edit]

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


An unnecessary and nearly-unused wrapper for Template:Book search. Liam987 talk 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Book search was created before Template:Booksearch, and since these two templates have the same content (except Template:Book search has cats), i've gone ahead and left Template:Booksearch as a redirect to Template:Book search. --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 19:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A soft redirect doesn't work for a template, as the soft redirect will be transcluded whenever the template is used. I've made it a normal redirect. Liam987 talk 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 12:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

All pages contained in category:pywikibot and it's sub-cats.[edit]

I propose this hole pywikibot manual for deleting. The origin pywikibot manual is hold by mw:, you'll find it as mw:Manual:Pywikibot with all it's content. The pages at Wikibooks are just older copies, they are outdated and nobody will update it here. The local copy may confuse developers and the duplication is not useful at all. Xqt (discusscontribs) 16:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you propose that the media wiki book be only hosted by Wikibooks (it seems the better project to have it), not that I particularly care, only addressing your duplication concern. I really don't see lack of advancement in itself as a proper reason for deletion. --Panic (discusscontribs) 16:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The manual is nearby the Mediawiki software (and its manual) where it concerns to. Maybe it was the first thought coming from meta. It does not make any sense to spread manuals on several platforms, especially when nobody keeps it up-to-date. This would be confusing bot owners. It is a property of that instruction manual of an often used bot framework in perpetual beta state to be outdated within a short time. Therefor I guess it would be a good idea to delete this page duplications, which you can verify by the version histories. Xqt (discusscontribs) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the rationality in discussing the notions like "nearby" when we are talking about the same Internet software infrastructure and same hardware setup (Wikimedia) especially after the merging efforts being made. In any case this isn't the place to argue about that particular need.
I'm not taking a position of opposition against your request at present, just pointing out that the grounds your are formulating it are very weak and in my view misdirected...
In regards to Wikibooks the nearness to the software isn't an issues, nor is it the duplication, in fact the issues you raised (confusion, etc) are good points to press the developers to, especially in light of general Wikimedia policies that fragmented the scope of each wiki subproject, move the manual here (in fact every manual that resides in the Media Wiki project), even facilitating future translations of the same. Our project is the best one to develop manuals and textbooks, that unarguably is our raison detre. Look for instance how we centralized our use of images on Commons, the logic is the same... --Panic (discusscontribs) 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Panic2k4, Xqt: It seems to me that since these manuals are for Mediawiki software, and are self-referential to Wikimedia, they should be kept at Mediawiki, especially since the software is used for non-Wikimedia sites. If we imported the manuals, it would follow that we should import all the descriptions of extensions and parser functions and so forth. That's what the Mediawiki website is for; to host it all here would muddle our mission and would be self-referential. But that is all a whole debate in itself. If we're going to have one, we should have them all, and so it makes no sense just having this one manual here, which is only an outdated version of the one at Mediawiki anyway. Liam987 talk 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per my rationale above. Liam987 talk 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)