Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

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

Undeletion

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.

A Bit History of Internet/Chapter 7 : Cloud-computing

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

Deletion

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.

How to Moonwalk

This book's content has not been edited significantly since it was taken from wikipedia in 2006. It shows no sign or chance of growth, given its obviously limited scope. Delete? --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 07:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I wouldn't have thought my first vote here would be to delete (I very rarely support deletions on other wikis). But this is indeed incomplete, and as you need special shoes, I suspect one could get hurt trying to follow those instructions literally. (Never overestimate the intelligence of your fellow man.) I see no reason whatsoever to keep it. Even if you could bring it up to snuff, it's been done better elsewhere, with the help of non-free images.[1] --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 12:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete Not a textbook, outside of our scope. Thenub314 (talk) 01:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete Not a book, not going to become one. (One could imagine it being a page of a book, but there don't appear to be any books around suitable for it to belong to.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

What about Dance for books around that might be suitable? --darklama 22:48, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Do you see any of those as suitable? None of them had seemed likely to me. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I checked before nominating and couldn't find any general dance books to incorporate this Moonwalking tutorial into. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I must have overlooked that Dance isn't what it use to be, when I checked briefly before asking the question. At one time Dance was the beginning of a general dance book to teach every dance like Puzzles is for puzzles. Looks like each dance is treated as a separate book now. --darklama 11:06, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete This is not a textbook and there is no evidence that it will become a text book. --msaikens (discuss · contribs) 20:08, 15 January 2012 (EST)

Multiple Books Created from Wikipedia Without Attribution

These books have all been created by mass copy / paste from Wikipedia, with no original input. The editor who despite having three accounts (User:Quachtahnh, User:Kysuthanh, User:Qtt1964) always edits via an IP and never responds to any request to stop copy / pasting. Numerous pages have been tagged as copyright violations, deleted, recreated and sometimes deleted again without any attempt from the editor to communicate or respond to comments noting the correct process for attribution. As an aside I find it particularly reprehensible that the editor claims "authorship" on all these books - a claim I have removed today - while denying the moral rights of those who actually created the material by refusing to follow the correct process of requesting imports or at least providing proper attribution as required by the site license.

I have trawled these books over the preceding months and probably sample checked 40% of the pages. I find that everything appears to be a copy from Wikipedia, always without attribution. I propose they should all be deleted and, if necessary, protected from re-creation to stop the editor continuing to abuse the moral rights of contributors to these projects.

• Physics Theories
• Digital Electronics
• Electronics/Electronics Formulas
• Electronics Machines and Systems
• Engineering Handbook
• Geometry Course
• Calculus Course
• Fundamental Digital Electronics
• Arithmetic Course
• Electronics Communication
• Electronics Handbook
• Communication Course
• Physics Course
• Electronics Fundamentals

I understand this could be controversial, and I'm talking about a lot of material, but I believe there is a fundamental violation of the principles of collaboration and a breach of the terms of use. QU ^TalkQu 22:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete, in agreement with your thoughts on the principles of collaboration. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 01:33, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment Delete if this guy is the only contributor. But I think protecting the pages to prevent recreation is an overreaction that might well prevent legitimate future contributions. It would be better to block the offender. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I think that problems of copyright violation from other Wikimedia projects are easily fixable, by anyone, so the only reason for deletion would be the lack of relevance of sufficient derivation from the original and that they could be speedily deleted, unless the articles are themselves under the risk of deletion at Wikipedia, then I would support a keep.

As for the protection I agree with Jomegat, this book titles are too generic to be good wikipedic articles titles. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 02:54, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't see the problems as "easily fixable" - the editor has been on a mission for months to copy hundreds of pages from Wikipedia and continues to do so despite requests not to. Unless some admins want to volunteer to do all the trawling, importing and history merging then it isn't going to get fixed. This is a large problem created by someone who clearly doesn't care if they breach the moral or legal rights of others - and continues to make the problem bigger faster than anyone could reasonably keep up with them. Especially as the complete lack of attribution and refusal to discuss the problem means we have to do our own searching to find the source material. Blocking the user requires a policy change or agreement that copy / pasting repeatedly without attribution is a blockable offence - personally I think it is but I may be in a minority. QU ^TalkQu 20:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anything about a block in this case that would require change to the blocking policy. Some choice passages from the policy page:

• "Blocks should only be applied if all other possible attempts to resolve the issues have been considered." — If we implement consensus here to delete, and the problem persists, we'll be about there.
• "All blocks ultimately exist to protect Wikibooks from harm, and reduce likely future problems, not to punish users." — Check.
• "persistently violating other policies or guidelines." — Check.

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:56, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The copyright violations are definitely the official reason for deletion that I agree with. Additionally, due to English not being the contributor's native language or due to the synthesis of material from various sources, the books' prose is poor (random capitalization of words is especially irritating). I struggled just with trying to make some corrections initially to the material, so QU's discovery of copyright infringement doesn't surprise me. I figured that the material, at the least, had to have been poorly translated from another language version of Wikibooks (note the global usage of some of the images used in the books). – Adrignola discuss 20:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment I'm going to check some more of these pages. Those that aren't copied from WP appear to be, where they have content enough to be checkable, copies from vi Wikibooks and pre-date the copy here. Given the use of an IP to edit with it then becomes even more problematic to determine if the material was original at vi Wikibooks then copied here, original at Wikipedia and translated to vi Wikibooks, then back to en Wikibooks (explaining the close matches to WP where the language has been mangled but the structure is identical) or something else. I'm happy to add an attribution link to vi WB and leave vi to determine if it thinks the original is okay or not. Where a page is a WP copy I'll tag it with {{copypaste}}. It'll take time though. Also, as many of you will know, lots of these pages are duplicated across the books here so the same page appears three or four times in some cases. QU ^TalkQu 22:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes that was what I meant by "easily fixable" it includes deletions of exact duplicates (or with limited level of derivation) and sticking the required general attribution to Wikipedia to the works. The rest is up for the editor and/or the administrators to go any further (requesting the transwikis and page history actualizations). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I think a temporary block (indefinite, but with the intent of being manually lifted) would be appropriate and in harmony with the blocking policy. If nothing else, it will get the disruptive editor's attention and either force him into a dialog, or drive him away. Either outcome is acceptable (though the former is preferred), as it puts an end to the disruptive edits. I propose that if he does not respond after some set period of time as explained in the block notices (multiple accounts), that the pages be deleted then, but not sooner than that. The deadline should be determined based on how often this user typically edits here (twice the average interval and then some rounding might be good), but I wouldn't make it longer than a month. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 23:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Block with eventual delete seems appropriate to me as well. Though I am content to arbitrarily choose a week or two as the period to wait. But if someone else wants to calculate something more reasonable, that could work as well. Thenub314 (talk) 04:10, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

A cursory check shows that the pages are edited about once every 8-ish days. I think two weeks would be about right. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

keep - If there's a problem then it can be fixed. We can do something about the lack of attribution to the original Wikipedia editors. I don't really get this moral rights thing that you're suggesting though. People who contribute to Wiki projects generally reject all this ownership of text kind of thinking - it's one of the reasons most of world use Wikipedia regularly, download music and video for free and read / write blogs. Basically, I don't think any of the original authors particularly care about their moral rights with regards to these books / articles.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Moral Rights is a UK / EU concept which doesn't apply given this site is US based. However, let me put it differently then. It is immoral to put your name on a book as the author when in fact you copied it from someone else and did not attribute it to them at all. The editor doesn't just do this implicitly by copy / pasting, they do it explicity by adding "Author:XXXX" along with their alleged academic qualifications on the main page of each book. To me this is immoral, gives the impression that this person is the author of various works when they aren't and is also a breach of the license conditions. It isn't easy at all to fix the attribution - I've tried that several times and the editor, by refusing to engage in any conversation, leaves us having to hunt down where it was copied from (and it isn't always WP) and import / merge the history. On a busy day this editor can add 50+ pages which can then take several hours to fix. In the meantime he / she is off copy / pasting the same material into several different variants of the book here. There's two ways to approach this in my opinion - prevent the individual from extending what I believe is a breach of the Terms of Use by violating the conditions of the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License by blocking the addition of new material until they agree to comply with those Terms. Or just ignore the breach and let it extend hoping nobody ever complains and ignoring the immorality of it. Retrospectively fixing it is only an option if someone wants to invest hours and hours of work in it - that's not me I'm afraid, I just don't have the time QU ^TalkQu 10:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I am convinced. Delete the books and block the account that created them. --Jomegat (discuss • contribs) 13:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

An IP editor has recently been around and removed the RFD tags from most of those books. I've blocked the user but he may be back.--ЗAНИA ^talk 16:41, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

That's the same IP that created a lot of the copy / paste problem in the first place. Normal mode of operation for them - just ignores requests to engage / comment and sets off on their own track. QU ^TalkQu 19:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Didn't have time to check that user's previous edits so didn't notice that they were also the pages' creator.--ЗAНИA ^talk 22:30, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Delete and block user. Preventing recreation doesn't make sense to me since the user could just as well choose other titles, can't he or she?. --Martin Kraus (discuss • contribs)

Anarchist FAQ

This was previously nominated for deletion in 2009; it was kept, on the hope that it would evolve significantly from the source material. However it hasn't. There have only been a handful of edits since 2009, most of them simply importing from the source or wikifying.

However my main concern is one that I don't really see addressed in the previous discussion, that of POV. I removed an NPOV template from one of the modules since the adder gave no specific objections, however I then looked over most of the book, and realized why the didn't. Pretty much the whole book is POV and there's no way I can see to making it NPOV; it's really just a soapbox.

On account of this issue and on account of the fact that it hasn't be developed, I suggest deletion, possibly moving to Wikisource, though I'm not sure it really belongs there either. (My impression was the WS was more for things that didn't originate online, but that's something for the WS community to decide.) --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

The nominator last time had began to copy it to Wikisource, but Wikisource:An Anarchist FAQ is even less developed. POV is a reason to improve a book, rather than a reason to delete. In the context of Anarchism, how is the book not neutral? --darklama 22:09, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

My point is that I don't think the book can ever be made NPOV, precisely because, as the Anarchist FAQ, it is intended to answer questions about anarchism from an Anarchist's position. Imagine if I created a book called the "Creation Science FAQ." There are plenty of those on the internet, the problem is that every one of them contains arguments that are very easily debunked. Now that's an extreme example, and though most of the claims anarchism are an opinion, the problem is the same: The goal is to have a book which prevents the opinion of of one side.

Now, a guide to world political systems would be NPOV, but there's no way this could be turned into that. Even a book on the history of anarchism might be made NPOV, though it would require somebody who cares enough to contribute to a work on anarchism who isn't an anarchist, or is at least a fair-minded anarchist.

Even then, if I were to write a book on anarchism (I'd probably do that if you paid me, though I don't care much about fringe political factions), there's no way I'd use this as a basis. (I probably wouldn't even use it as a reference.) That would requite a complete reorganization of the book, deletion of many chapters, and complete rewrites of pretty much all the others, and move to a new title. Unless somebody wants to do that, and that specifically, not write a new book on Anarchism from scratch, (and in two years, we can't even get anybody to contribute to a defense of anarchism), there's absolutely no point in keeping it.

What we have is an FAQ, copied pretty much verbatim two years ago from an anarchist website, with no attempts to improve it. Wikibooks is a place for texbooks, not a soapbox for textbook-length political manifestos. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 22:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

WB:NPOV describes NPOV as depending on a book's scope. A book with the scope of Anarchism from an Anarchist's POV is neutral as long as the mainstream view of Anarchist is represented in what is taught, that is if the book is to teach mainstream Anarchism. A book about Anarchism doesn't need to cover other political systems to be considered neutral. A book on Intelligent Design or Creationism would be within scope as well. Wikibooks has Biblical Studies and other books about Religion. OTOH a book with the intended scope to cover world political systems would not be considered NPOV if there was no attempt to teach the many political systems that exist. --darklama 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see where in the NPOV policy it would permit a POV book. Religion and Biblical studies are both legitimate fields of study (and I'm speaking as an unabashed atheist here), in the same way that political science is. In fact I met a few students doing majoring in religious studies when I was in college who were also nontheists. Now, a book called "Why the Bible is True," would specifically advocate a specific viewpoint, and therefore be NPOV. Quoting WB:SOAP:

Wikibooks is not a soapbox, or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikibooks modules are not:

1. propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Wikibooks modules must always adhere to the neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start your own blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views.
2. personal essays that state your particular opinions about a topic. Wikibooks is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.

This book is of course nothing but personal essays and propaganda. Each page is an implausible leading question, (e.g.Why are anarchists in favour of equality?) used as an excuse to write an essay. --Quintucket (discuss • contribs) 23:49, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I will agree with you that Anarchist FAQ has many NPOV issues, the naming isn't ideal, nor is the formatting of the book. However, I don't see it as grounds for definite deletion. As outlined in Introduction to Philosophy/Anarchism, Anarchism is a valid political ideology with roots in history. I would certainly support books on Liberalism, Conservatism, Feminism, Socialism, etc. To vote for the deletion of Anarchism based on its status as a radical and minority political ideal, and therefore less "legitimate" than any study of Theism, would in itself be a question of NPOV.

The general actions of wikibookians seem to err on the side of salvaging works. Since this book is clearly unfinished and abandoned, I would instead support keeping the book and tagging it with NPOV and expand markers. My next action would be either adopting the book and fixing the NPOV by developing a new scope for the book, or simply suggesting those moves on the talk page for the book, hoping others will one day take notice. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the opinion that a POV book is impossible at Wikibooks, and concur with Darklama assertion that the POV depends on how the scope is set. Having said this I must note that on Wikibooks a book scope and its community is not static, and so over time it may evolve.

I would oppose for instance your option of tagging it as a NPOV violation, if you did not commit at least to make a some effort to put the work in the a NPOV path. The few times I placed NPOV violation tags were when there was a evident distortion of reality or suppression of divergent views, no editor is obligated to cater to views he objects, but the NPOV requirement to me means the need to at least state that other views exist, unless the scope makes that requirement unnecessary and these are extremely rare. In the book targeted by the RfD a quick look at it only identifies a few pages that may have problems "Section C - What are the myths of capitalist economics?" and pages on the A.5 section. I did a quick read of Section C and did not find any major NPOV problems...

I'm opposed to the deletion. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I too am opposed to the deletion of this book. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

opposed Blatantly POV material should be removed but if we allow religious books then other books of a controversial religious or political nature should be allowed.--ЗAНИA ^talk 14:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Ericgwright

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

Corposcindosis

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

MagicJack

(The proposal advanced by Msaikens, as originally proposed, was targeting the page MagicJack/Support Resources/FAQ for the RfD, but the statement is not clear about the subject as it refers to the book. Since the project is greater than that single page and the page does not presents any disallowed content in itself, it must be examined in the full context of the book). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

This "book" servers no true educational purpose. It is simply a product FAQ and guide. Wikibooks isn't the place for a company to post their FAQ's or guides. The company has their own comprehensive FAQ and ticket base on their website found at http://magicjack.com/faq/ . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Msaikens (discuss • contribs)

I presume this concerns the whole book rather than just the FAQ page. I'd be inclined to agree with the above comment though.--ЗAНИA ^talk 11:09, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue of this book has previously been discussed in Wikibooks:Reading_room/General. I support the RfD, I first examined the work in 30 December 2008 and found it too mercantile and not of an instructional nature, at the time I contacted the main editor and some minor corrections were made to the praises and criticism section, but the content itself has not improved beyond the simple exposition of a commercial product, that does not compare to other commercial user manuals that we normally would see as having educational value. I also do not see any other project that would welcome such content, delete. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

If the book diversified and looked at all VOIP devices, especially ones with relevance to the rest of the world then it could become more like a book.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

ORIGINAL POST UPDATEI noticed there was a previous discussion. I still was not satisfied with the "book" being allowed to remain. If it were edited to include all VoIP services, I may change my mind. Though, I don't see this as likely. msaikens (msaikens -- contribs) 19:47 18 January 2012