Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Cookbook:Human

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search

Cookbook:Human[edit]

I believe Cookbook:Human was deleted without appropriate consideration of policy. I also believe that the counting of votes for the deletion of Cookbook:Kenbuloga was flawed, and find it highly objectionable that Gentgeen, the very user who nominated it for deletion, was the same user who decided that the results were a consensus, which I do not believe they were, and subsequently deleted the page.

The votes at Kenbuloga were 4 delete, 1 keep, and 2 keep if verified. No evidence was provided to verify that this was a legitamate recipe, while the recipe failed a google and a yahoo test, so I took that to be 4-1, or 80% for deletion. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
That may be, but you're still not supposed to delete something that you nominated.

For Cookbook:Human there have been no citations from Gentgeen of policy, even when requested, except that "Wikibooks is not Wikipedia", which is clear from the logo in the upper-left-hand corner of every page here. In fact, that doesn't make much sense because cookbook entries aren't supposed to be in Wikipedia anymore!

--Node ue 22:35, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In this decision to delete, I saw an anon IP remove the page from VfD. I checked, and the same IP had created the module, and removed the VfD tag from it. Based on the two vandalous actions of supressing a legitimate VfD listing, I decided this anon was a vandal and temp blocked the IP address. I looked at the page in question, determined it was full of inaccuracies, misstatements, and was most likely posted to be intentionally offensive, and speedy deleted it as simple vandalism. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The "keep" votes for "Special brownies" greatly outnumbered the votes for "delete", 9-4. It was extremely irresponsible of Gentgeen to 1. remove it from this page and 2. delete the article, without further discussion of which votes should be counted, and which should not, especially since he himself had voted "delete". I request that the page be undeleted immediately. --Node ue 23:16, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

actually, I never voted in the special brownie debate. Of the users who voted keep, most had no history at this project, they merely claimed to be well known wikipedians. Of the actual members of this community, the vote was 6-3, with liblam, the only cookbook contributor who voted, voting to delete. keep deleted Gentgeen 23:53, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • ahem* hardly a consensus.--Node ue 01:43, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clarify: votes for deletion can only be made by contributers to the book from which the module in question is from, or can they be made by any wikibookian? I was under the impression that any wikibookian could vote, but Genteen appears to have only counted cookbook contributers. Fugg 09:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
To clairfy: I investigated the edit history of all the voters in this case, and only counted the votes of users with a history of editing wikibooks. Users whos only edits were to their user page and to VfD were not counted. This led to a 6-3 vote in favor of deletion. I thought this was a "grey area" between consensus and no consensus, so I looked at the votes cast by the users listed in Cookbook:Contributors, 1 user there voted to delete, the others (including myself) did not vote. In my mind, this pushed the article into the consensus to delete category. So, all wikibooks users votes were counted, with the "tie breaker" (although delete had 2/3 of the vote) going to the editing staff of the wikibook involved. Gentgeen 09:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Oops, my bad. I missed two votes for deletion in my first count. 6-3 in favour of delete, if you leave out wikipedians whose user pages don't link to their user pages here. Fugg 00:37, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Stupid criteria. I never thought to link my two profiles together, yet I'm a regular of both pedia and books, and even contributed to the article in question. You're basically just Gerrymanding the process to your own ends. Yeago 05:19, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The "special brownies" can have a distinct undeletion request if desired; it doesn't belong here. If they are what I suspect, involving drugs, I regret to say that they are indeed a reasonably popular food. (you people must be nuts -- the special brownie makers, that is) Probably they would best be a variation though, not a distinct recipe.

Undelete. As least temporarily, I must ask that Cookbook:Human be undeleted. While I suspect that this was junk, the circumstances surrounding deletion are suspicious. If the entry was indeed junk, I'd like to try fixing it. Do note that I am in fact a major contributer to the cookbook. I have contributed over two dozen original recipes, probably a somewhat larger number of ingredients, and zillions of link fixes. I'd be happy to write a tasteful and accurate entry for Cookbook:Human. (as an ingredient with appropriate warnings, not a recipe) AlbertCahalan 16:41, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's curious to me, Albert Cahalan, that you claim total ignorance of the content of the Cookbook:Human entry, yet Cookbook:Placenta, an entry in which only you have made edits, includes a link to it (further, the Human entry came first, not yours-- so the evidence does not support a claim that you made a link to a not yet existent entry). How could you possibly have including a link on this topic without following it? (Further, when you made the link, no further edits to Human were made.) MShonle 21:38, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Cookbook:Placenta includes a link to Cookbook:Human because it is an obvious link to make. (at the time, Cookbook:Human was deleted) When it came time to make the link, my thoughts were "damn, there's some sort of controvery over that, perhaps I ought to investigate before filling in the entry for human". So, while I was aware of some sort of controversy, I knew little of the nature of the controversy. I have an interest in making the Cookbook as comprehensive as possible. People eat snails, acorns, worms, rotten eggs (a delicacy in China), and even testicles (Gross!). Well, if people eat it, it's an ingredient. I apply the same logic to recipes, cooking methods, and kitchen tools. If it exists and someone is willing to put in the effort to create a proper entry, it belongs in the Cookbook. Assuming that the Cookbook:Human article was indeed awful, I'd like to write a proper replacement. (nice and short: normally illegal; for the curious, it tastes like beef; placenta may be legal; warning about disease; maybe link to the wikibooks survival guide) Perhaps you'd be willing to help write something tasteful. Please use any recently-edited meat ingredient as a template, and stick to the facts.
Sorry, but I'm going to stick with writing algorithms and programming language entries. If I come upon a good vegan recipe I'll add one, but all of the vegan recipes I use are from extant cookbooks, and cannot be put under GFDL. I think describing how to cook humans crosses the line: no college or university will bother with that, but journalists writing (unfavorable) reviews of wikibooks just love to pounce on it. This kind of shock value style of writing only hurts our credibility, and serves no useful utility to anyone other than those who like to be shocked. (And that's out of the scope of our mission here.) MShonle 22:20, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted It should be clear that there is no useful purpose for having this entry. It's either just a bad joke or the sign of someone with serious mental issues. MShonle 22:51, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, it is not at all clear. If nothing else, the entry can satisfy curiousity. Being afraid to allow even the existance of this entry is a sign of mental issues. Why are you so afraid of it? Anyway, you are not a Cookbook contributer, and the deletion policy has been violated. AlbertCahalan 23:28, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Keep Deleted liblamb 05:12, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Undelete, agree with AlbertCahalan. Snargle 00:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)