Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

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


Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

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

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

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

Hello thanks for educating me about how it supposed to work, but my content (page) was speedily deleted and I had no chance to save the content so I can merged it in the existing book in accordance to the rules. Would you let me recover the content in the deleted page below? For a history of the (very short) discussion see User_talk:C.t.chin#copy_.2F_paste. Emailing the content to me would be great, thank you so much!

7 December 2015

   (Deletion log); 08:46 . . QuiteUnusual (discuss | contribs) deleted page OpenSCAD User Manual/General 2 ‎(copy paste without attribution)
   (Move log); 08:45 . . QuiteUnusual (discuss | contribs) moved page OpenSCAD User Manual/General (by c.t.chin) to OpenSCAD User Manual/General 2 without leaving a redirect ‎(we don't want your username in the book title)

C.t.chin (discusscontribs) 04:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

where do you want it merged to? QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


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.

Modern Greek[edit]

Request to delete Modern_Greek/Lesson_7x. Content fully integrated on updated page Modern_Greek/Lesson_2.1x

Done. You appear to have moved all the content by copy / paste. The site license requires the history (i.e., the record of the original authors) to be maintained. If you want to do something similar in future please use the {{Now merged}} template to request a merge. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 09:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks @QuiteUnusual:. Yes, I've copied a few pages to fresh pages. I'm still sorting through the old content. I have just tried a "now merged", hope that it worked. Many thanks. Aphoneyclimber (discusscontribs) 13:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Request to delete Modern Greek/LegacyLesson_5b. There is nothing here that doesn't separately exist in Modern Greek/Lesson 02.2 which is the correct structure.

NOTE: There are on-going rfd's and merge requests for this. There appears to have been no active work on the Modern Greek Wikibook for many years and my attempts at getting previous contributors involved appears to have failed. I have made many changes / improvements and have had no comments, so I expect no discussion regarding these on going changes. Hopefully as the content grows some more contributors will be attracted.

PostgreSQL/Working with PostgreSQL[edit]

The page is a draft, there is only 1 extention since 2010. The content of the page has very few relationship to PostgreSQL. It's mainly a short description of some SQL commands which are common to all SQL implementations. Kelti (discusscontribs) 09:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep this page concerns the data types and constraints so it won't be common to all DBMS. Moreover, I had planned to take care of this book in a few weeks... JackPotte (discusscontribs) 21:55, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Please move those parts, which are common to all SQL implementations, to wikibook SQL (eg: string types, primary key, ...) and keep only those parts, which are specific to PostgreSQL (eg: macaddr, differences between PostgreSQL and MySQL, ...). --Kelti (discusscontribs) 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
The page main author, Fishpi has left for two years, but personally I'm reluctant to split his page. Nevertheless, if you do it I won't revert anything. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 08:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Cookbook:Space Cake[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

List of Computational Sustainability Courses[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


User:JackPotte seems to propose either deletion or moving to Guide to Unix. I oppose both and therefore vote keep. The page is admittedly a stub, but that's fine: Wikibooks has loads of utterly useless stubs, and this stub is not utterly useless.

A further claim is that this cannot be expanded to be long enough and therefore is encyclopedic. I submit that whether something is encyclopedic as opposed to instructional is not a matter of length; Encyclopedia Britannica has some very long articles, longer than most Wikibooks "books". The page is to instruct how to use "less" and is therefore instructional in character and within remit of Wikibooks. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

If the outcome is that this should be deleted, please move the page to User:Dan Polansky/Less. I wish Wikibooks good luck in attracting contributors of useful content that does not fit Wikipedia and adds value for Wikibooks readers. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

On a slightly different subject, I propose that the use of {{closed}} template in closure of deletion discussion is abandoned. It is useful to be able to skim through closed discussions, which the template prevents by hiding the actual content of the discussions on a per-discussion basis. I propose that discussions are closed by (i) striking out the discussion header, and (ii) stating the outcome of the discussion in boldface. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:05, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't see the difficulty with expanding material one wants to read. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete per Talk:Less. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 11:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    Talk:Less does not contain any policy-based or consensus-based argument. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    I don't agree with you on this point too. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 11:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    I know. When I asked you to quote the relevant policy, you quoted parts of it and then added your wording since the parts were not enough. Either there is a policy that requires a minimum lenght of the material to be eventually developed as a single page or there is not. You have failed to quote such a policy. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 12:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Two meta-level remarks about this section.
  • This section was not created by a proponent of deleting the book, so it's not clear to me that any deletion nomination has actually been made. I don't mean this as a bureaucratic technicality, but as a practical problem with what is being presented here: the only explanation given here as to why the book should be deleted is written by someone who evidently does not believe the book should be deleted, and in my experience it is at best extremely difficult for someone who does not hold a position to give a properly effective presentation of that position. So I don't see much point in the community trying to weigh in on the issue when the issue has not been reliably set before us. In effect, what we have been offered here is not a proposal that something be done, but rather a proposal that something not be done. For an effective community discussion, we need to start with a clear definition of what action is proposed.
  • Reminder: positions expressed here are not "votes"; it's not a question of simply counting up how many contributors take which position.
--Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:28, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. As a way of explanation, JackPotte was threatening to delete the stub (which I admit it is but will be expanded later) by placing {{query}} to it, which I removed as inappropriate. Let JackPotte present policy-based deletion rationale here. I did my best to represent his arguments here, but I admit I could have goofed; let JackPotte present his deletion rationale as best as he can.
As for whether this is about "votes", I think the vote count outcome should still be clear to anyone reading this later, and the vote count still matters as long as the voters try to engage in argument seeking exercise rather than placing bare votes. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 12:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
We did discuss, once upon a time, whether there would be a better word to use instead of "vote". The word "stance" was discussed — I think I might even have suggested it — but never really took off because, although it's short (one syllable), it's not as core-vocabulary as "vote". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 12:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I don't want to copy-paste Talk:Less here, but to sum up: these 612 characters are not a book. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 13:13, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, these 612 characters are a stub. What can be admitted is that, after the page gets expanded, it still will not be of the length typical of a book, but one should not really be confused by the word "book" in "Wikibooks"; the keyword is instructional, not book. Novels are books and yet are excluded. Therefore, I ask now as before that the nominator for deletion provide a policy-based rationale. Stubs that are not deleted are in Category:Stubs, including Communism and American Studies. I submit that Less is already more useful than those stubs. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 13:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete or rather, move to be one chapter of a larger book. I think I have to agree with Jack Potte here: I don't think the topic is large enough to require a book on its own. Length is immaterial, though: my thought is that less is but one of a suite of *ix utilities, and would be of much more use if it was grouped with those utilities under a *ix header of some sort. In particular, then there could be a header page that grouped by functionality, giving an overview of what could be done and which tools were available to do it. I have to admit that, having never before seen books for single utilities broken out as separate, if I was looking for a CLI utility like less I would start by searching for a CLI reference. Chazz (talk) 18:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep why the hell are people alienating an editor that started a project/page in the last 30 days is beyond me. There is plenty of other work to do, pending merges etc... and people decide to disrupt an active contributor ?!?
Let him provide the free content then we can have a better view of what it is and what to do with it, even if it takes a few years to get there, there is no mischief being done and we certainly do not delete stubs...
A request was made to an active contributor and he did not agree (no consensus), that should be the end a the discussion, even spending more energy in a debate is harmful to the project as the contributions will certainly decrease and add frustration to all involved. A more protracted discussion would be right if the standing of the editors was similar or the alterations were significant (like if the page was moved out of an already existing aggregation). Just live User:Dan Polansky alone, or join in on his contributions... --Panic (discusscontribs) 20:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep for now. For whatever reason, these two users have gotten irritated at each other, and that would make it hard to engage in a constructive conversation with the author atm. I suspect that in the long run this content will be most appropriately handled as part of something else, but we can afford to wait a while first, so we know better better what we're dealing with, and when-and-if we do want to start such a discussion I'd really like to see if we can do so without antagonizing each other. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
    There isn't any hard feeling on my side, I think that the shortest our policy about our inclusion criteria is, the longest these debates will be, by virtue of what is subjectively a book and what's not. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
I think you have overstated your position in this mater and by reading Talk:Less I can only infer that you had a more complex rational behind it (I clearly read a strong distaste for stubs), but at the same time forgot (or decided to ignore) the potential harm you could cause, harm that depended only on User:Dan Polansky reactions. Your position in regards to policy was ultimately not positivity stated there, and would not benefit Wikibooks at that time and place.
For instance Wikibooks:Naming policy only bit that can be enforced is that "Each chapter or page in a book must start with the name of the book followed by a slash" and the rest plus the linked material is only guidelines. I agree with you that the title should be later changed, and kept as a redire4ct if nothing else covers the same topic. But at the same time realize that there is not enough content in it yet, depending on how the project evolves it could be merged into an aggregate of similar but related content.
The proper place to debate issues with our policy is in its talk page (even indicating works that go against it as examples). There are more complex project that fall outside of our policy but still reside in Wikibooks without anyone taking drastic actions. Enabling useful free content should have primacy over all other considerations, we can always decide later what to do with it even without any protracted discussion, all content will ultimately become orphan over time.
The case in point is that a positive active stub with 30 days or even more (depending on the level of activity) shouldn't be a target for long debates or arguments, beyond simple nudges to the editors. It is not only premature but clearly harmful and disruptive. (The same is valid for interactions with new contributors) --Panic (discusscontribs) 23:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
30 days seem reasonable (from the creation or the last edition), above which we could add the 7 days of the {{query}} process. I would be ready to launch a vote like Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Vote to officialize it, once and for all. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 08:46, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
PS: that should also mention that the minimum time before adding {{BookCat}} is good-sense to avoid any edition conflict. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 09:08, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm a bit lost in what you are proposing, {{BookCat}} and {{query}} in my view do not need a timeout protection. The first should be deferred to the page creator/project contributors (or left out until they decide what to do or someone helps them selecting the proper place for the work). The query on the other hand should be open to anyone that disagrees with the merit of the created page, as to streamline the speedy deletion of unwanted/abusive creations and permit a response from those involved in it without an necessary RfD (I would agree that at least a 24h grace period could be used but that should be common sense resulting from what content is on the created page, some would even merit a query tag just after the first edit).
In any case I don't see anyone supporting here or on the tagged work talk page supporting your view point so attempting to aff them to the policies (it covers several as I understand it) would be futile at present. Feel free to elaborate more on the proper forums maybe you can gather consensus, you can also use the proposals page on the Wikibooks:Reading room. --Panic (discusscontribs) 11:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  • A question to supporters of deletion: if there is to be minimum eventual length, what would it approximately be? Like, what number of words? Since my point above again is that the instructional character matches Wikibooks well, and that the dispute seems to be not about character but rather about eventual length as opposed to current length. Word counting of the less man page at[1] gives me over 10 000 words, so that would be a floor on the eventual length of the page. If, on the other hand, current length is the concern, then the question is to what extent does Wikibooks want to delete stubs or substubs. I do believe that something like substubs should be deleted; these are for example pages that contain table of contents and nothing else. If editors consider the current page to be too much of a substub, I can expand it to make it longer. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

American Studies[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.


I propose to delete this page since it contains TOC and no nother content and has been so for more over a year, in fact since 2007; note that Conphilosophy/Branches is again just a list of redlinked subpages.

As for WB:Deletion, the relevant part is probably "delete pages with no meaningful content". What does not seem to apply is "In general, keep stubs that can be improved on, but delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about". Also relevant could be the line "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content" which spells out what "Absence of meaningful content" covers.

Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Conphilosophy is a 2009 deletion nomination by me that resulted in keeping. However, I think the deletion discussion was at odds with WB:Deletion's "delete pages with no meaningful content", or it was made with a different interpretation of that statement in mind. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems clear enough to me: conphilosophy would be philosophy selected not for advocacy but for ascription to a conworld. Making the merge that much more natural. On the question of content, there's not very much there (though more than you quote since there's an outline for one section) — which only makes it all the easier to simply merge into the other book. I could likely do it in a few spare minutes except for the encumbrance of this extant RFD. Tbh, proposing to merge would have been more constructive. I don't understand a desire to delete content in preference to salvaging it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 14:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
So which sentence is the content as opposed to meta-content or scoping information? Do you mean the trivial pseudo-outline that I have posted? Anyone with a shovel can create such a pseudo-outline for almost any subject. I have now added the philosophy branches, but they do not present any non-trivial substance.
What is an example of conphilosophy? Which books and resources could the reader check or which operational tests could the reader perform to verify the accuracy of the content? --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 15:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be excluding meta-information from "meaningful content". That doesn't work for books. A major difficulty in writing a book is organizing it; note in the earlier RFD I phrased myself in terms of usefulness to later writers. You also seem anxious to denigrate someone else's contributions, which surprises me given your reversed role in another current RFD. Human thought is a precious resource; I hate to see any of it go to waste — and in this case the only obstacle to salvaging it is your position that it should be deleted instead, an attitude I find hard to fathom. As for verification, Wikibooks is more relaxed about references than Wikipedia, and in any case you're on pretty thin ice simultaneously claiming there's nothing there and objecting to the quality of sourcing. If there's nothing there, then it costs nothing to merge it into the other book, so again I see no merit (and some demerit) in demanding a deletion. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
For one thing, I indeed tend to exclude meta-information from "meaningful content". In particular, I do not consider the above quoted redlinked outline to be "meaningful content". It certainly is no more meaningful than the TOC at American Studies, which is currently in RFD with five people expressing views in favor of deletion. However, as for keeping meta-information-only stubs, there could be an outline that would make the page worth keeping, but such an outline would need to be something non-trivial. As for my Less page currently in RFD, the page is a stub but has what I consider to be "meaningful content"; the content is meaningful because it contains recipes, items of information that a user of the less program can use to do certain things with the program, to accomplish a task. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:31, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
As for WB:DP's "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content", I consider meta-information to be excluded from "actual content". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I reject any artificial distinction between organization and "actual content". What matters is the test I defined before: would someone coming along later have an easier task if the material were still available. In some cases the answer is "no". From my experience of the conlanging/conworlding material, I think in this case the answer is not quite "no". As I've noted, it'd be trivially easy to absorb what's useful there into the other book, and I find a preference for destroying things instead repellant. (In using the word "repellant", I'm actually censoring much stronger terms of opprobrium.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Btw, my test is directly supported by the policy page: "Content is not meaningful if it does not add value to readers or otherwise contribute to the project." So if it contributes to the project, it doesn't matter whether it's meta-information. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 20:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
The distinction between meta-information and actual content is meaningful and certainly not artificial. In a cookbook, even a single recipe is the actual content that helps the reader produce a certain outcome, whereas an outline that breaks down the cookbook into vegetable recipes and poultry recipes is not the actual content. The distinction is what the WB:DP seems to invoke when talking about "actual content" in contrast to "intent". My position is that TOC outlines without actual content - boxes without recipes to put in the boxes - should be deleted when abandoned for an extensive period of time, and this position seems to find some support in WB:DP.
The above quoted redlined outline is so trivial that it does not contribute to the Wikibooks project. It does not help anyone start writing a "conphilosophy" book or chapter. Anyone who had the first idea of how to write a "conphilosophy" book could easily start anew.
That said, I don't object to merging to Conworld. OTOH, I think Conworld should be deleted as well but that won't happen. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Well. So much for conphilosophy. As for meta-information, it seems clear to me that the passage I've quoted specifically points out meaninglessness is not exclusively determined by usefulness to readers; usefulness to writers ("to the project") also matters. What you call these things... well, no, it does matter, at least some; that's why I mislike the term "actual content" for non-organizational information, as that implies that infrastructure in some sense "doesn't count", which is over-general. Certainly some meta-information is unhelpful (as is some non-meta information). That's why I've !voted in favor of deleting some of these outline-only books, but not all. What sorts of organizational information are helpful is very dependent on the nature of the book. (Even more elaborately, I think meta-information could be more effectively useful if it came in the form of some sort of well-designed context-sensitive semi-automated assistance, rather than merely an outline or organizational discussion; which is why I'm working on making wiki markup capable of doing that despite the WMF's ill-advised choice of direction.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Yet another angle: Interestingly enough, since I have quoted the redlinked outline in full in this discussion, and since this discussion is archived, prospective creators of a "conphilosophy" book can read this outline in the archived discussion. This would be even easier if RFD discussions were archived directly on the talk pages of deleted pages rather than in subpages in RFD; at least, the subpages of RFD are linked from talk pages. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 12:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep , or Symbol merge vote.svg Merge into Conworld. While I broadly agree with Dan Polansky on there being a difference between "actual" content and meta-content which is relevant for RfD cases (cf. the current American Studies and Australian Studies RfDs), I do not think it provides a sufficient reason for deletion. In this case, there are two attenuating factors:
  • Crucially, the Conworld book provides not only a reasonable merge target but also a overarching context for the Con- books in as they are currently laid out (cf. the "This book is part of the Conworld series of wikibooks" template).
  • An additional, and less clear-cut, factor is that (near-)empty books are arguably less harmful if they cover a minor (but in-scope) topic, as opposed to claiming a major and highly visible topic and/or title (such as American Studies).
That being so, I regard this Conphilosophy outline as part of a broader Conworld multi-book project, and the choice between keeping it as it is or merging it (as well as the other Con- books) into Conworld as an editorial decision to be taken by the involved editors. Therefore, the preferred outcome for me is "keep". If you find this to be too lenient a reading of deletion polices ("intent, but no actual content", etc.), a merge into Conworld would also be a reasonable outcome.
P.S.: As for the relevance of "conphilosophy" as a subject, it seems quite clear that "conphilosophy" is a neologism created following the pattern "conlang" (a much better known neologism). If the Conlang book is about creating plausible fictional languages, the Conphilosophy one is about creating plausible fictional philosophies. Putting it in another way, the issue of relevance probably would not have been raised if, rather than "Conworld" and "Conphilosophy", the books in question were called "Ficctional Worlds" and "Philosophy in Fictional Worlds". (Admittedly, though, the current introductory text in the Conphilosophy front page doesn't help much, as the fictional aspect is not obvious if you don't know what the "con-" prefix stands for -- for instance, a description such as "However, you are not interested in the philosophers of this world-- you want to create your own philosophy" applies just as well to real philosophic activity.)
Duplode (discusscontribs) 05:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Australian Studies[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

A History of Nejd[edit]

Delete as having no meaningful content, per WB:Deletion: "delete pages with no meaningful content" and "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content". In this state since 2007‎; 181 words. In particular, TOC-only page with with no actual content. For the record, I do not consider bulletted itemized outlines to be "actual content"; some may differ.

For reference, kept in 2010 in Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/A History of Nejd, which I think was based on a different intepretation of "meaningful content". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 08:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As good as dead. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 21:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This looks potentially useful to someone who decides they want to contribute on the subject, and (noting the previous discussion) I do not think it would present an obstacle to such a person.

    The term "meaningful content" is clearly explained in the policy and has a broader sense than the current nominator is apparently assigning to it. Sometimes a stub-quality book falls on the same side of the term as explicated in the policy and as interpreted in this current spate of nominations. However, in the case of this book, the existing outline is clearly "meaningful". --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

    The WB:DP#Meaningful_content policy explains that "meaningful content" includes "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content". I do not consider tables of content to be "actual content", and this is where we disagree. If this 181-word table of contents can sit here for a decade without substantive editing and still survive a RFD, then the bar is very low indeed. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Doesn't seem worth keeping--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 10:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Though it is somewhat a good "layout" for any editor to start working on, it is still a page with absolutely no content whatsoever. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)