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


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.

IB Physics[edit]

Possibly IB Physics should be deleted. It is more a set of notes than a book. It does not relate to the current IB Physics syllabus. And it appears to have been lifted without permission or attribution from [1]. I have good intentions to work on a rewrite although am not in any position to commit the time required to complete this. --Russell E (discusscontribs) 09:46, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'notes' does not seem to be much of an issue as a set of notes can also be a book. Updating it to fit the current syllabus may also not be that difficult. However, as it was copied from a website without any copyright statement whatsoever, I agree that we'd better play safe and delete. Kayau (discuss · email · contribs · logs · count) 12:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
The link to the copied website no longer functions. A definition of something should remain the same, no matter where it is. I will see if I have time to update this book so that it matches the current syllabus. However I am working on the IB Math HL book as well, I shall see if there is anyone from my school also in IB Physics that can help me with this. --Lichking21st

12:45, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Keep I am for updating it to the syllabus, rather than deleting it. I'm up to contribute as well, but I think it will be smarter to wait for the new syllabus. IB syllabuses are updated and changed every 3 years. This examination session (May 2013) will be the last one with the 2009 syllabus, after that, the new syllabus will be announced. It doesn't seem very smart to updated to a soon-out-of-date syllabus. (UPDATE: The book right now has very little in common with the actual syllabus, after updating it to a different syllabus it will have absolutely nothing to do with its previous version, thus there would be no copyvio)Gustavoh (discusscontribs) 17:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Will it perhaps be easier to start from scratch, then? Kayau (talk · contribs) 06:42, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Keep it and fix it. Parts of the document are ideal for IB study, especially the Q & A format for assessment statements. —Preceding unsigned comment by Fzxbez (discusscontribs) added before 14:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I don't see a consensus to delete, or any indication that it wasn't moved over by the author (who used mediawiki too). But rename to 'IB Physics 2009'. The basics of IB Physics doesn't change, but the taxonomy and ordering does, as do details. Sj (discusscontribs) 02:00, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Transwiki: Living With a Narcissist[edit]

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

Cantonese/Lesson 10[edit]

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

HTML Programming redirects[edit]

I think most people who want to learn HTML are aware than HTML is not a programming language. I think it's best not to keep them. Kayau (talk · contribs) 11:28, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep That's not necessarily the case. I think it's best to keep it. Liam987 13:22, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

WB doesn't generally have 'similar meaning' redirects (e.g. Introduction to Lorem Ipsum wouldn't redirect to A Beginner's Guide to Lorem Ipsum) and in this case, the redirects are actually wrong... Kayau (talk · contribs) 14:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete OK, that makes sense Liam987 15:13, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Seems to be a useful redirect. There are plenty of people who would consider it to be a programming language even if it isn't and people are far more likely to search for 'HTML Programming' than the wordy 'Hyper-text markup language' (which is the actual name of the book).--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 15:34, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete subpage redirects, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep book redirect. People can still find it by searching for 'HTML Programming' without the subpages. --darklama 15:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I hadn't realised that there were redirects for every page of the book. In that case, any redirects other than the front page should be deleted. --ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 17:15, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Be aware that HTML already redirects to this book, and it is likely that those who do not know the name of the book on HTML are likely to simply type this in to the search box, instead of the full "HTML Programming" - Liam987 14:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC)


Esperanto/History should be deleted as it is out of the scope of the Esperanto book and is outdated. Ebe123 (discusscontribs) 01:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Question: Could you explain, as background to your nomination of this,
  • how history of Esperanto can be out of scope for a book on Esperanto?
  • how history can be out of date?
I can't imagine how, even if the "history" is out of date, that could be grounds for deletion. If it's out of date, it should be updated. Out-of-scope would seem to be a more significant reason, if it didn't seem on the face of it so unlikely for history of Esperanto in a book about Esperanto. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:50, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete . This is a page showing a summary of the changes in the development of Esperanto wikibook rather than of Esperanto language. Can be copied to Talk:Esperanto#Book history or the like before it gets deleted. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Delete Ahh, okay. Yeah, that information doesn't belong in the book proper. The talk page is a reasonable place for it. It can of course be recreated, and updated, by archeological means. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:00, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Guitar/Song Library[edit]

A chapter that is purely links to external sites. Also nested chapters. There are four chapters - one containing the three internal links and nothing else and the three chapters of external links.

There's the usual links but also I want to know if this wikitabs site is part of Wikipedia et al.

The chapter is also full of links to tabs generated by:

I don't know what to make of all this. This chapter seems to be an external link directory. This is meant to be a book about the guitar not a search engine or link directory. I've added a deletion request.

So it part of Wikipedia et al?

Also why have they nested the chapters?. You click on Song Library and get presented with a whole chapter dedicated to displaying three links.


Forgot to sign it. This request was posted on the 17 August 2013. I'm signing it today. Sorry about that.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 16:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Symbol question.svg Question: Wikitabs isn't part of the "Wikimedia" family, no. Now you've deleted all the links, do you still feel the page should be deleted? QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 21:46, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

The book is progressing and these spam links really belong to the Wild West days of Wikimedia projects. I edit the Guitar book regularly and find that these legacy pages stand in the way. Here's my idea about what this book can be. Most books are started and then seem to get stuck. Its almost like the order of the material forces future editors to avoid tackling structure. I'm reworking material from other editors and adding my own with a view of creating a Wikibook that is comprehensive in its coverage and logical in its structure and presentation. I'm not admin so I have to request that pages and chapters be deleted. The Guitar Chords Song Library has to go - its spam. its boring, its overloaded with links, its nested pages that are separated from the main structure.

Probably the most important reason is its spam. External links to commercial sites and some amateur sites with basic lyric sheets with chords symbols above. If you want to go to the Delta Quadrant on Voyager with a bunch of guitarists who all use the same wrong chords and keys that's up to you. Personally it all smacks of Lister on the Red Dwarf if you ask me. Its spam.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 19:46, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Lua Programming[edit]

I suggest deletion of the all the pages in Category:Lua Programming­. I would say that this isn't as much about deleting as it is about merging. There are two books about Lua programming, one which is called Lua programming and another which is called Lua Programming. I have written most of the former, while the latter is a collection of very short articles about different topics related to Lua. I have either merged directly or moved all content in the latter that could be useful. Almost all of what is left overlaps with the former book, and the rest is things that it either would be very difficult to merge and don't have much content (basically, it'd be easier to rewrite those than to merge them), or that are empty articles that mention that Lua doesn't have this or that feature (which could be useful in a list of features Lua doesn't have, which I will probably add to the former book at some point, but could not really be useful anywhere else).

There are 100 articles in the category, but they are all very similar: just look at two of them and you'll notice that all the others are similar. I have looked at all of them, one by one, and think they could all be deleted. --Mark Otaris (discusscontribs) 04:52, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The naming convention we use is that the name of a book uses title case, i.e., all important words capitalized; while the name of a subject category uses sentence case, i.e., only the first word and proper names capitalized. A book category (category of pages of the book) has the same name as the book, thus uses title case; while a subject category (category of books in a subject) has the same name as the subject, thus uses sentence case.
So there absolutely should not be a book called Lua programming. It's possible to have more than one book on a subject, but all books should have names using title case.
I'm not (yet) taking a position on this nomination; just providing background information. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:46, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have mentioned that the major reason I am nominating the pages in this category for deletion is in fact because I am thinking of renaming the book Lua programming to Lua Programming for consistency with other books. I wouldn't have created this nomination otherwise because while deleting the other content could have been useful for maintenance, it wouldn't have been as necessary. I think it would be better to first clean up what is there before moving it, to not end up with an unmaintainable number of articles, hence this nomination. I wasn't aware that book names could not use sentence case at all, but I see many advantages and no disadvantage to using title case. I also found the following excerpt in the manual of style:

Some people prefer to use title casing like books often do, while other people prefer to use sentence casing like Wikipedia does. Title casing is recommended for book titles as it reduces the potential conflict between title- and subject-categories. Casing on subpage names and sections is entirely a matter of style. Whatever combination of schemes for book titles, pages and sections, please be consistent and follow the existing style for books you are editing.

That excerpt, while it doesn't indicate that sentence case should not be used for book titles, does recommend against using it for book titles. Perhaps it should be changed to make the recommendation stronger or to make it a guideline, though this probably isn't necessary (and should be discussed on the manual's talk page, not here). -- Mark Otaris (discusscontribs) 21:50, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
Symbol comment vote.svg Only cleanup I totally support you, Mark Otaris. Cleaning the two contents is great. Now let's see what to do with those two books. I think you should move all the good content of Lua programming by renaming Lua programming/... to Lua Programming/... . If a page already exists, copy/paste the content to the page in Lua Programming and transform the page in Lua programming into a redirect. Then transform all the old pages of Lua Programming into a redirect, either to an appropriate page or to the book page. Doing this, you will have a single book called Lua Programming with only the right pages, invisible redirects that point to the right content and in Lua programming only redirects. Alright? So why requesting a deletion? It is not needed. And again thanks for your work! There is not enough cleaners over here. Ftiercel (discusscontribs) 17:51, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
I have already merged all the useful content from Lua Programming (some of it was pretty useful, especially the page on iterators since I wasn't very comfortable with iterator functions), which means there isn't any useful content there anymore that doesn't overlap with Lua programming. No page that I'd need to move to already exists, and I'm planning to move stuff by just using the move tool, which creates redirects. The problem is that there is already a lot of very small pages containing one or two paragraphs. I'm requesting a deletion so that the space can be cleaned before moving, as all the useful content has been merged already. There is more than a hundred of very very small pages (less than stubs, in many cases) in Lua Programming and these pages don't use the same structure as Lua programming. Many of those pages are pages that mention that Lua doesn't have a feature (see Lua Programming/How to Lua/bitwise, Lua Programming/How to Lua/conditional compilation and Lua Programming/How to Lua/empty statement, for example). Lua programming is a book about Lua programming while Lua Programming is more of a short wiki that contains many articles on different Lua-related topics, so they're really not compatible, and having a hundred redirects to other pages in ways that are not very relevant, especially if these redirects also don't have name structures that would make sense here, is really not something ideal. The books can be merged in content, and already have been, but they cannot be merged in structure because one (Lua programming) is a book with a flow while the other (Lua Programming) is a sort of mini-wiki with many less-than-stubs articles about particular topics. --Mark Otaris (discusscontribs) 23:18, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support assuming what Mark Otaris says has been done. Not having worked with Lua, I'm not able to judge; but if the cleanup is done, it only makes sense to toss the disorganized pile in favour of the organized book, and then rename the organized book to make it title case if that gripes people. Chazz (talk) 00:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support I have skimmed through the content on both pages. The 'Lua programming' content as a formatted book is superior to the content of 'Lua Programming' which is hard to navigate, does not have a narrative--more of a catalogue of various topics, and is poorly formatted. I support the merge of Lua programming and Lua Programming, with Lua programming's content largely superseding Lua Programming's. My only suggestion is that Lua Programming does have a section called 'solutions' which suggests there should be pages about writing Lua components in C and C++ and embedding and embedding Lua in C and C++. Hackbinary (discusscontribs) 13:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:29, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose bulk deletion - the older book's pages are apparently used by some, and are even receiving recent updates (cf. How to Lua). To avoid breaking inbound links: better to turn those into a section-level redirect for either a page in the new book that mentions the same topic, or a new appendix of the new book that combines all of these stubs. Sj (discusscontribs) 02:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That’s a very unclean solution, though. There are (exactly) 100 pages in Lua Programming, most very small stubs (one sentence for most of them), untidy, many with improper formatting. Lua programming is almost complete: all there is left to add is literally around 5 paragraphs to describe some of the standard libraries that aren’t described yet. It can also include information about the C API or using Lua outside of an embedded environment, but I’m not planning to add these to the book, although I would be glad if someone else did it.
It is of course possible to make section redirects for some pages, but I doubt they are actually linked to from elsewhere on the web. Furthermore, it won’t work for most pages because the books were designed very differently: one (Lua programming) is a book which covers various topics in order while the other is a mini-wiki with a lot of small articles about various functions or keywords. I specifically designed Lua programming to cover topics rather than functions or keywords, in such a way that there isn’t in fact a single section covering a specific function or keyword. Therefore, it is just not possible to make equivalences with section redirects for most of the pages.
My opinion is that it would be better to leave the two books separate as they are now than to merge them with section redirects and an appendix to contain the stubs at the end, because that’d make it untidy and would make it harder to maintain. It’d be a lot of maintenance work for practically no benefit. --Mark Otaris (discusscontribs) 05:01, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


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

Hebrew Roots[edit]

This has extreme factual and NPOV issues. For example, Hebrew Roots/Neglected Commandments/Idolatry/Easter has an almost certainly false account of the origins of Easter. Hebrew Roots/Unclean foods/Diseases has issues with original research and NPOV. Maybe this could be moved to Wikiversity (I don't know if it would be appropriate there)? InverseHypercube (discusscontribs) 07:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete While it is possible to write an NPOV textbook about religion, it is extremely difficult, and this would seem not to be one such. I don't think it can be repaired, unfortunately. Chazz (talk) 23:18, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete The only way to build a neutral textbook on anything is to start with a fact-based worldview. This isn't, and there's no recovering from that. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:19, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Meniktah's response - request for consideration[edit]

At present I am at a disadvantage as I am overseas without regular internet access. This book includes over 300 pages, and four years worth of work. Deleting that with two vaguely described problems is an injustice. The book contains various types of content ranging from describing common Abrahamic concepts (like Hebrew Roots/The Law and the Covenants/Covenant) and pages which are comparable to Biblical Studies/Bible Topics (see Hebrew Roots/The Law and the Covenants) which would fit, to doctrinal positions of the people within the Hebrew Roots movement (e.g. Hebrew Roots/Neglected Commandments/Sabbath) which are comparable to A Summary of Theology and Thought in Messianic Judaism. If the community doesnt like the positions of the Hebrew Roots movement, much of the material could be moved to Biblical Studies/Old Testament Commentaries and Biblical Studies/New Testament Commentaries. Many parts of this book have sources for the material, such as over 30 quotes at Hebrew Roots/Neglected Commandments/Sabbath/Statements of Historians (mostly from scholars, encyclopedias, etc), and detailed notes at Hebrew Roots/Neglected Commandments/Honouring His Name/Appendix1, including w:textual criticism. Regarding the page about adoption of Easter, the pagan roots from which it comes is well documented in encyclopedias, as Wikipedia also covers under w:Ēostre. I have attempted to present the beliefs that this Hebraic Roots movement is embracing for educational purposes. If parts of this page about Easter do not align with modern research on the history of this tradition, they can be removed or improved, prefixed with "Members of the Hebrew Roots movement believe that ..", and/or notes can be added to explain how these beliefs are not up to date with present scientific achievements, educating readers. The same applies to the page about unclean food diseases. User:Panic2k4 and I have discussed parts of that page, regarding accuracy and style, and I have happily made the desired changes. There are sources throughout the page about diseases; if they are not an accurate reflection of science, please fix them or point them out so that I can adjust them accordingly. I request more than the seven days stipulated to make the corrections sought.

Here are some pages to look at for more precise comparisons, that you might make




—Preceding unsigned comment added by Meniktah (discusscontribs) 06:14, 2 January 2014

I suggest you save the text in case it gets deleted (a few ways to do so are described here). In case you can't back it up before it is deleted, administrators have the ability to do so:
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.
Maybe the case could be made that it should be moved to Wikiversity, but I don't think it's appropriate for Wikibooks. As the other commentators have pointed out, it's essentially not a factual book. Handpicking scientific studies to support a religious view is problematic, even if the science is perfectly good. InverseHypercube (discusscontribs) 05:19, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Hiking in the Canadian Rockies, etc.[edit]

  1. Hiking in the Canadian Rockies
  2. London
  3. South East Queensland
  4. Texas State Travel Guide
  5. Teaching Assistant in France Survival Guide
  6. Enjoy Tokyo
  7. Guide to Electrical Equipment for Travelers
  8. Colico

Transwiki Hi! Sorry for nominating so many at once - I'd like to nominate the above books for export to Wikivoyage, the WMF's travel guide project. They are largely incomplete and could be integrated well either into existing articles on WV or the site's guide framework. Let me know what you think! :) --Nicholasjf21 (discusscontribs) 22:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

On a procedural note, there is nothing to prevent Wikivoyage importing the books, regardless of the outcome of this discussion. However, I thought I'd note that Transwiki import is not enabled for Wikivoyage from Wikibooks and nor does any usergroup have the importupload right needed to complete an XML upload. You will therefore need to make a request at Meta for a Steward to do the import or to add the userright temporarily to a trusted user / admin. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 14:08, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up! How long do discussions of this nature normally take on Wikibooks before consensus is formed? I wouldn't want to appeal for a steward's assistance prematurely. --Nicholasjf21 (discusscontribs) 02:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
You don't need to wait for this discussion. Importing the material to Wikivoyage won't have any effect on Wikibooks, so that can happen while we're still discussing it here. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 03:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much! Request submitted here. --Nicholasjf21 (discusscontribs) 22:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm not ultra familiar with how things work over here. :) --Nicholasjf21 (discusscontribs) 04:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
That's OK, neither am I. [g] - dcljr (discusscontribs) 04:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki Seems right to me... now that there is a place better suited to these things, a transwiki seems to be the most obvious choice. I know I would not have expected to find travel guides on a textbook site... Chazz (talk) 07:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
It's always been controversial to limit Wikibooks to textbooks; I gather there was some politics behind pushing the project to limits its scope that way (before my time here), and some objections continuing, I believe, to this day. In this case, though, Wikivoyage exists and we wish it every success, so the scope question is largely a matter of alternative history. We're happy to host such books, but there's no need for us to host them if Wikivoyage welcomes the material. If some thing where not a good fit for Wikivoyage, it could certainly be hosted here and Wikivoyage could link back to its location here; but I see no such thing in this case. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:52, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
You're right - I'd sort of earmarked that one for its own article, to make use of the effort that's been put into it. --Nicholasjf21 (discusscontribs) 15:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki transwiki-ing seems right, as the center of enthusiasm for improving travel guides is at Wikivoyage now. I can also imagine collections of many guides from WikiVoyage someday becoming books ("travelling in europe" or similar) that could be downloaded, printed, added to Wikibooks, etc. -- Phoebe (discusscontribs) 22:23, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki most of these, good idea. . I don't know about the Guide to Electrical Equipment. Sj (discusscontribs) 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

GRE Computer Science[edit]

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


The page was created some five years ago by with a copy of (a news:comp.lang.lisp article, as it seems.) The copy was then commented out last year, with a comment left at the talk page. The page now bears entirely inappropriate {{review}} and {{rejected}} templates, and has no useful content whatsoever.

Frankly, I can see the original intent. However, using Wikibooks to essentially archive Internet fora (be it Usenet or something else), is out of the project’s scope, is prone to copyright violations, and, in this particular case, just failed to really start off.

Ivan Shmakov (dc) 18:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)