Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
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 | Renaming
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

Undeletion[edit]

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.

Deleted recipe[edit]

I have had to delete the recipe you added as it was copied from another website that has a copyright notice. You will need to prove you own the copyright in order to add it to Wikibooks. Thanks QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)


now, THIS was my own recipe. I uploaded it to allrecipes.com but alas it will not be kitchen approved due to my user name and nobody can bring it up. I then uploaded it to food.com who then added some nutritional information I don't care about. I then added some pictures to my recipe that I took myself with my tablet. I then added it to wikibooks by using the recipe template. I came back and found this idiot can't even READ the name of the submitter here and at food.com and notice it is in fact the same person.

I cannot find it in discussions or in any log entries.

It is raisin-cinnamon yeast raised doughnuts. I may not have had "yeast raised" in the title. It also fixes problems that most folks have with ingredients killing yeast. odd that a recipe that was donated to the public domain by me has been deleted because there's some stupid copyright notice someplace. the copyright is on the collection of recipes not individual ones and they also hold the copyright of the nutritional information which I did NOT provide here. Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 00:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

As apparently I am an "idiot" I decline to act on this request - another administrator will consider it. I will note however that having a username on one website that is the same as the username on another website is zero evidence that you are in fact (a) the same user and (b) actually the copyright holder. Or are you implying that you are the one and only Robert Dell in the whole world? There are specific instructions on how to provide evidence of ownership and I suggest to the closing administrator that they ensure you follow those before undeleting. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The user would need to prove they have the legal right to publish the recipe here. It seems the user either failed to realize the difficulty of determining identity across the internet, or the user is pretending not to realize; we have, of course, no way to distinguish between these eminently plausible hypotheses without the aforementioned proof (or, improbably, proof to the contrary). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:52, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
"There are specific instructions on how to provide evidence of ownership" where? the internet is a very big place and so is wikipedia and wikibooks. you say there are specific instructions, let me see them.

by the way, read the note on the food.com recipe and you'll see something else added that only the original recipe submitter could add which is "I also hereby grant myself permission to post this recipe to wikibooks as I already donated it to the public domain." Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 16:15, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I got a response from food.com
Thank you for contacting Food.com.


This sounds like something you need to ask Wikibooks. Members own the rights to their own recipes on our site.


Customer Support
Food.com: Home of the Home Cook
http://www.food.com

Original Message-----
From: dellr007@yahoo.com (dellr007@yahoo.com)
Sent: Sep 24, 2014 9:17:09 PM
Subject: Comment/Suggestion
I posted one of my recipes here and posted it as well on wikibooks. My recipe on wikibooks was summarily deleted simply because your site has a copyright notice on it.
precisely WHAT is copyrighted? surely not my own recipe by itself. if that's the case then it's a super easy way to steal others' work.
I imagine that you copyright the look and feel of the site, the collection of recipes (not a single recipe), and the nutritional information information that you add.
by the way, can you folks kindly remove this from my page? I don't intend to subscribe as my inbox is too full already. I can't see underneath it.
Free Weekly Newsletter
Get the latest recipes and tips delivered right to your inbox.
Your e-mail is safe. Privacy Policy
Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 11:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Robert note that the above conversation does not prove anything to anyone, its only your word that things are as described, that is not enough to clarify any dispute. Since you haven't replied if anyone (or who) objected to your inclusion of the content I can't go further than I already have. On Wikibooks we act pro-actively to prevent copyright infringement, but note that any copyright violation is really only valid if formalized by the copyright owner or if it goes into a community deletion process (it should be a distinct process but that has been the norm) and the content is removed as the better avenue to resolve any perceived threat. --Panic (discusscontribs) 13:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
As I only noticed now this undeletion request I think that several issues require a comment. Robert shouldn't insult a fellow volunteer, I guess that it was done out of a feeling of impotence and due to not knowing how the project works. In any case I see that the proper avenue of resolution is to request another admin. to look at the simple fact that both parties of the dispute can't prove or disprove that the content isn't valid and a) revert the deletion b) start a discussion for deletion on the grounds of copyright violation if Robert's explanations did not suffice. Of course that it someone contact the copyright owner and validates/refutes it this wouldn't be necessary.
I have also a question. I assume that the content wasn't tagged with a copyvio (7 days) and was summarily deleted and a message posted on the user talk page, is this right ? If so that seems the root for Robert (that we should assume is correct and considering the content under discussion I see no major issue) being distressed by the action.
I also note that "You will need to prove you own the copyright in order to add it to Wikibooks" is not correct, that is, as far as anyone needs to prove that a contributor hasn't the right to some content to Wikibooks, like if a request from a verified copyright holder materializes.
We normally act pro-actively and raise the proper concerns and QuiteUnusual was acting on those grounds, but considering the expedited deletion and the history of Robert on the project, alienating the user without better grounds seems a disservice.
One could argue for the undeletion but after the input from Robert we should be discussing to obtain the consensus for deletion. --Panic (discusscontribs) 08:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with the suggestion that a blatant copyright violation mightn't be subject to speedy deletion. This strikes me as gratuitous red tape. Granted, "blatant copyright violation" doesn't appear explicitly on the list of en.wb speedy deletion criteria (unlike en.wn, where it does appear explicitly on our list — necessarily, because competing news sites care most about copyright violation during the short time when the news is fresh, and are famous for aggressively going after copyright-violating websites to get them shut down); however, if you want to nit-pick policies, WB:SPEEDY does list "Pages that cannot comply with the scope or policies of the project." That seems to me to cover this case. Afaics there's no disagreement that it's the same recipe; the outstanding question is establishing that the copy is authorized. So, given that the copying has been established and the authorization has not, it doesn't belong here until and unless the authorization is established.
It is unfortunate that Robert Dell needlessly alienated the one (in my experience, helpful and friendly) admin who was already well familiar with all the nuances of the case and would therefore presumably have been most easily able to assess the adequacy of additional measures. Any other admin will have to invest a bunch of volunteer time and effort in getting up to speed on the details of the matter, which may slow things down quite a lot (especially since alienating one admin likely won't make other admins especially eager to tangle with the case). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
What most of the adminship fails to realize is that due process is required to avoid (detect)) and correct for errors (order of actions), that administrators are averse to bureaucratic processes seems a contradiction as they are the ones that must strongly rely on them as their safeguards to exercise fair judgment and operate impartially and correctly, it is not by chance that the highest level of an administrator is the bureaucrat. I have no problem of skipping processes if respecting the basic rule that, opposition to any action results in undoing the action until consensus is established... so what I'm not comfortable is when people refuse to recognize that the admin tools are no exception and should not to be abused, even unintentionally, to reverse the positions on any dispute.
By your own assertion the speedy deletion was not kosher (it wouldn't be a problem, if the acting admin would simply reverse the action facing a valid opposition, as you know there are very few oppositions to copyright violations).
I fail to see how copyright has been established at best you can say that a strong case of previous ownership of the content was demonstrated, but the contributor of the content also provided a valid response to that (he is a registered user and there is no previous record of vandalism), the only reason I do not grant Robert more credit is because a) it was his first contribution b) he does not have a registered email on his account but even so proper order of precesses should be fallowed even when we have high suspicions as to protect all involved.
There is a fragility on how we execute our pro-active copyright enforcement, I have made a long diatribe about this several years ago to then admin WhiteKnight (in fact the book I was working on was put on copyvio due to it, and other shenanigans). In this case to establish the copyright the admin. would have needed to contact the proposed author (there shouldn't be any difference to establish or refute copyright ownership, even if we initially skew the play-field against suspicious contributions). --Panic (discusscontribs) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
We all have failings; one of yours is that you're overly fond of bureaucracy. (It did not escape my attention that in another recent discussion you were so focused on your claim to be the victim of improper procedure that you actively sought to prevent your own substantive concerns from being addressed so they wouldn't distract from your procedural complaint.) A good admin acts for the good of the project; it follows from that, that they would seek to be fair and follow proper procedure, as both of those things are in the best interests of the project. If proper procedure becomes the driving force behind their actions, then the good of the project suffers. Wikipedia is prone to excessive red tape; other sister projects often have policies that cut down on the red tape, and I've found en.wb is one such. Admin policies should not be allowed to suffer from instruction creep.
I did not say what you attribute to me. I said the speedy deletion was kosher, and it should stand until and unless an admin determines that the concern behind the speedy deletion has been eliminated. A determination, one way or another, as to whether or not the concern has been eliminated, would have happened already if Robert Dell hadn't make the poor tactical decision to treat as an enemy the person most likely to help him. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 04:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
No fond but respectful, bureaucracy is simply the name given to the fallowing of rules that guide the function of a system, the more complex the system it fallow the more rules it requires to operate. Bureaucracy isn't intrinsically evil as I said a bureaucrat is an administrator (even more so on Wikimedia projects).
On Wikibooks we do have very little rules and regulations and even less procedural obligations, I guess one needs to be technically inclined to understand how procedures exist to curb errors and inefficiencies and a bit of politically aware to see how spiking, ignoring and creating exceptions is always a dangerous thing. So call me a stickler for what we have, one don't particularly need to like or dislike it but I see a need to call out when we deviate from them or require common acceptance that we should do so as to establish how it ought to be done next time.
Kosher = ritually clean (or simply clean) since we give copyvio 7 days to contest as we jumped that stage it was clearly not the required process. This ultimately lead to the undeletion process being initiated by QU (the better option would have been to undelete and start a deletion discussion) that's the point I'm attempting to pass (considering the specific content and contributor). --Panic (discusscontribs) 12:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
I know what the word kosher means. I also know what bureaucracy means, and you're missing the point of what I said about it. Bureaucracy is not inherently beneficial (despite your attempt to define it so), and too much of it is commonly referred to as red tape, a very bad thing. I'm saying you're too fond of it, which leads to red tape. Two different admins have explained why leaving this copyvio lying around for a week would have been neither procedurally necessary, nor common-sensically appropriate, nor legally wise.
Btw, the use of the word "bureaucrat" for a level of wiki privileges has no deep metaphysical significance; a set of privs was conceived, it needed a name, that name was assigne to it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Wikibooks is policy light and has a large number of "holes" where discretion is required based on custom and practice. So, while WB:COPYVIO states that possible copyright violations get a week for the editor to prove they have permission it also states that the deletion policy for copyright can be found at Wikibooks:Copyrights. To anyone familiar with the way policies are worded this is clearly intended to mean that the policy that is directly relevant is Wikibooks:Copyrights and in the case of inconsistency I would tend to prefer the latter policy. At Wikibooks:Copyrights#Contributors.27_rights_and_obligations it makes it very clear that the importing of text is never permitted without proven permission - so the policy is violated as soon as the import occurs. It also does not state that there is a mandatory waiting period before deletion should occur. Indeed, as any copyright lawyer will tell you, declining to act as soon as a violation is detected makes the offence more serious. Turning to this specific case, this discussion is going all over the place and missing the point. All the editor needs to do is provide proof of ownership to an administrator's satisfaction. I was perfectly happy to do that before the editor decide that my contributions here were idiotic. This project has less than 3 active administrators who do anything outside of the occasional obvious vandalism delete or block. That puts the whole admin load on them (and it is usually me who is the only person here every day clearing up the spam). There also aren't any editors willing to do much to help other people. How many people are here keeping the class projects in order, restructuring all the new books when the pages get put in the wrong place, categorising pages, inserting reference lists, maintaining the subjects? None of those either - that's pretty much just me. And how many Reviewers are there dealing with the backlog of pending changes? Yes, that's me again. Don't believe it? Check here to see who does 80% of the admin work. No surprise there's the occasional error, but when I mess something up, I apologise as anyone who has been here any length of time will know. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:04, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "It also does not state that there is a mandatory waiting period before deletion should occur." - all actions have a default 7 days period for opposition, be bold, that was later enshrined as a policy, empowers the deletion to occur but it shouldn't be used to force a position (shifting the discussion, or redefine the status quo), that has been the rule of thumb (with some few exceptions that have often lead to conflict). This time span for reaction, and proper order of action was even a topic of the discussion regarding the last process involving Mike Lifeguard IIRC.
In relation to "as any copyright lawyer will tell you, declining to act as soon as a violation is detected makes the offense more serious." the assertion is incorrect as you were not acting on a notice from the copyright owner, you were acting under your own suspicion (based on circumstantial evidences but nothing more) in that regard you are not moved above the considerations granted to the original contributor (as I said it is a conflict of opinion). Permitting a registered Wikibookian time to retort should be norm, even after the speedy the right course of action would be to undelete and gather consensus for the deletion. No rationalization can supplant the righteousness of the process, unless you diminish the considerations that should be granted to the initial contributor.
In any case even if I agree with you that this subject may be closed (and of a minor importance) we should strive to keep up with the proper way of doing things as to avoid unnecessary escalation and alienating people. --Panic (discusscontribs) 12:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
While accepting your point in principle re the "proper way of doing things" the reality is that there are not enough people willing to help in order to do this. For example, to follow a process like on Wikipedia of tagging every candidate for speedy deletion; warning every vandal four times before blocking; warning the creator of tagging pages and so on then it would be between 4 and 9 times as much work as it is today - and we barely stay on top of it as it is. The fact that there is a project to contribute at all that isn't stuffed full of spam and vandalism is down to a couple of local admins and the efforts of the global sysops / rollbackers. I came back from a 1 week vacation to find 400 pending changes, 50 pages of spam and a whole stack of vandalism that nobody had dealt with while I was away. I'm afraid there's a balance to find here between what we'd all like and the reality of the situation where nobody can be bothered to help.QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for understanding part of it and I must point out that I did not go beyond regretting that you decided to start a precess for undeletion. I think that your deletion was right, even if you could have opted to tagg it, I understand the workload and even the validity of the analysis of the contributor.
One issue that goes beyond this discussion but run parallel to my opposition to lose speedy deletions, is that the general community hasn't access to any logs of what is deleted or way to oversee it (to my understanding, hope it is not out-of-date, not even admins can look into the content once deleted, it always requires an undeletion and then there seem to be a bug of name collisions, multiple pages deleted under the same name). Another is the way copyvio is often used to delete content (that only requires proper attribution) or as a way to expedite real discovery work and legalese.
I'm glad that we aren't Wikipedia but note that as I said those procedures exist in part (they seem excessive indeed) due to the complexity of the system (the number of actions and the need protect all parties). As for our lack of admins I guess that the problem is that we have raised our requirements for adminship a lot and on the other hand we have lost many committed Wikibookians, even the number of new projects/productivity has been diminishing there is also a relation to the times we are living...
PS: I do my bit when I can and be certain that I appreciate your work, it is also because I care that I participate. --Panic (discusscontribs) 16:17, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
This is not a complicated situation. The recipe was an unauthorized copy, therefore copyvio, speedily deleted. Now that we know there's a copyright problem, we can't host it until and unless we establish in an iron-clad way that there's legal permission. If we do establish that, we can host it. Simple. More than 90% of this thread is unnecessary; I'd estimate if Robert Dell had limited things to a polite, factual discussion the whole thing could have taken maybe 20 lines of text, 30 at the outside. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
"You will need to prove you own the copyright in order to add it to Wikibooks" If this is true then it's impossible for me to add anything I create to wikibooks as everything I create is automatically donated into the public domain (even THIS text). The bureaucracy of wiki in this project AND other projects (undoing my edits for correctness about the Mahoning river which I live nearby in wikipedia for example) leads me to the one single conclusion that wiki is not good enough to have my content installed. It's not that my content is not good enough for wiki, it's the other way around that wiki isn't good enough to have my content installed. Do what you wish, keep it deleted or include it. I provided you with enough information for you to determine the origin of the recipe is in fact me and there is no copyright I hold for that recipe so there can be no proof that I hold any copyright for something that has no copyright. All I can do is prove that I originated the recipe and then donated it to the public domain. All you have to do is look up the recipe in food.com and see (unloess you think I hacked that site in order to fake a notice for something that nobody will ever complain about).
Enjoy! Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 00:17, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
After checking the "cc-by-sa license", I found out that "public domain" is incompatable with the wikipedia's "cc-by-sa license" simply because it is not copyrighted. Under that and that alone, I hereby request that my contributions never be allowed into wikibooks (That is IF I am correct in my assumptions).Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 00:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
That was badly worded, but it is valid on the context (under a copyvio dispute). In general you are correct PD is the absence of copyright and PD is compatible with relicensing (in fact you are relicensing PD content when you contribute it, under your ownership on Wikimedia projects). The issue of relicensing PD was what motivated the first wave of free licenses, that and to avoid profiteering.
Can you provide a way anyone can verify that your account here is the same that posted the content ? (I haven't checked the site) One way would be that both accounts shared the same email, that would solve it... --Panic (discusscontribs) 04:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
just click [this link|http://www.food.com/recipe/raisin-cinnamon-yeast-doughnuts-518277] and you will go directly to the recipe at the site in question. read the note (click more) and it will tell all. I'm actually shocked nobody did this. Robert Dell (discusscontribs) 21:11, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be getting a little sidetracked here.

QuiteUnusual vaguely alludes to "specific instructions on how to provide evidence of ownership". If there is some specific instruction that you wish people would follow, it would help everyone if someone would post a direct link to that instruction.

QuiteUnusual vaguely alludes to "another website" -- are you perhaps referring to the recipe that Robert Dell posted to http://www.food.com/recipe/raisin-cinnamon-yeast-doughnuts-518277 ? That page now does in fact say "Robert Dell's Note: ... I also hereby grant myself permission to post this recipe to wikibooks", which as far as I can see is all the confirmation and verification that anyone in this thread has asked for.

Robert Dell, many people will be surprised and skeptical to hear that that "public domain" is allegedly incompatible with the wikipedia's "cc-by-sa license". The many people posting public-domain works at http://wikisource.org/ and https://commons.wikimedia.org/ see no such incompatibility -- those sites have the same "cc-by-sa license" as Wikibooks.

Robert Dell, you may be surprised to learn that @ceoSteveJobs, @JPMorganCEO, @KimKierkegaardashian, @SeinfeldToday, and @Seinfeld2000 are not, in fact, Steve Jobs, Jamie Dimon, Kim Kardashian, Søren Kierkegaard, or Jerry Seinfeld. --DavidCary (discusscontribs) 04:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

We have such a large problem with copyright violations in the Cookbook (I would estimate nearly 500 in the last two years, that there is a specific editnotice that reads "If you are about to copy a recipe you found on the Internet then STOP NOW. You are about to commit a copyright violation and it WILL BE DELETED and you might be BLOCKED." Despite this the problem continues. The food.com site was where the receipe in question was copied from but the notice on it you are referring to was not in place when it was copied. On the "how to prove" question, it appears that the instructions aren't clear. The main guideline is at WB:DONATE but misses a couple of steps that are available in the Wikipedia equivalent and need to be included here - so I will update accordingly. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Deletion[edit]

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.

US History/Vikings[edit]

Erik the Red and Leif Erikson are discussed in the section on European history. Erik's other children, and Snorri Sturluson, seem irrelevant. Pittsburgh Poet (discusscontribs) 22:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you nominating the whole page, or just two sections for deletion? Normally what to include or not in a book is decided through consensus by the book contributors on the book's or page's discussion page. --darklama 01:41, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I am nominating the orphaned chapter US History/Vikings under the section Orphans in "Discussion." I'll go to the book's discussion page, then. Thank you. Pittsburgh Poet (discusscontribs) 10:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It's almost 4 years since the last contribution to that page (not sure how active other pages of the book are though) so you could make the edits as you see fit provided you explain your rationale in the Edit Summary. The fact that the information is already included elsewhere in the book seems a good enough reason.--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 20:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Corset/Popular culture[edit]

A virtually random and pointless list of women wearing a particular garment. What educational purpose could this serve? —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:35, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Keep - The list is on topic and serves a purpose inside the work it belong to, this is not Wikipedia. --Panic (discusscontribs) 22:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Seems entirely relevant to the book.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 18:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting_Trends_In_Web_Hosting[edit]

I think that the content in this page does not fit in within Wikibooks. This seems to be an article by itself , not meant for a book. This is better served somewhere else.--Leaderboard 06:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

It's actually an article fragment. It could be expanded into a book, but it would take one heck of a lot of planning, planning that the sole author doesn't seem to have done yet. I'd suggest a wait and see on this one. Chazz (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
It's a spam page created by a bot - deleted. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 08:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)