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.

High School Trigonometry, High School Engineering, High School Chemistry, High School Earth Science, High School Life Science, High School Biology, High School Calculus, High School Geometry, High School Probability and Statistics[edit]

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

The Wrestling Universe[edit]

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


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


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

All pages contained in category:pywikibot and it's sub-cats.[edit]

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


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

Cookbook:Char Siu[edit]

Not sure if this page qualifies for speedy deletion, so I am requesting it to be deleted here. I've noticed that Cookbook:Char Siu is an exact copy-and-paste of Cookbook:Char Sui (note the switched "u" and "i") and, according to Kgroat's edit summary on Cookbook:Char Siu, was intended to be a move to the correct name for the page. I am requesting it to be deleted to make way for a proper page move from Cookbook:Char Sui to Cookbook:Char Siu. (There is only one revision in Cookbook:Char Siu's page history, not including my addition of the {{rfd}} template.) CabbagePotato (discusscontribs) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: I think this easily qualifies as non-controversial housekeeping. I've changed it to a speedy deletion request on the page. @Kgroat: registered users can rename pages using the move tab at the top of the page. Please use this feature rather than copy-and-pasting because it preserves the edit history. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


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

nominate "Subject/headline"[edit]

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

Labdoo Guide[edit]

Please delete as content outdated and will not be updated, as we moved to a local wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralf D MH (discusscontribs)

Not a valid deletion criterion. Other editors may choose to expand the material. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Nobody has touched the only page of this book for almost three years, and the project has its own wiki up-to-date in several languages, so nobody needs ours. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
As QU noted, "hasn't been expanded" is not a valid reason for deletion. Nor, I would add, is "somebody else has a book about it". Writing books is, in fact, hard to do, because of the organizational concerns that differ a book from a miscellaneous pile of pages. I hope in the long run we can have semi-automated assistance that will help, but regardless of whether, or when, that might happen, the fact that a book has not yet become something wonderful is not a reason to set back future contributors by depriving them of what's there now. I don't know of a page on Wikibooks corresponding to Wikipedia's "There is no deadline", but imo the principle applies. (This is, of course, in partial contrast to Wikinews, where there usually is a deadline.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
But I had perfectly understood QU, please let me rephrase that there is no market for that, nobody will ever read or write our Labdoo Guide because it's not needed at all. LABDOO is a humanitarian social network, this is in the first place a website which has its own complete wiki on it. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 10:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Today the two pages appear into Special:UncategorizedPages, because the only significant contributor or author blanked page, unless it's an affiliated one. So I'm ready to delete them according to Wikibooks:Deletion_policy#Speedy_deletions and this debate. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 12:51, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Labdoo Guide/How To Start[edit]

Please delete as content outdated and no update planned, as we moved to a local wiki in our homepage.

Not a valid deletion criterion. Other editors may choose to expand the material. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 16:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Again, please delete, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Labdoo-DACH (discusscontribs)

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.

Romanian/List of words[edit]

If we put the large amount of numbers − amounting to 2/3 of the content − aside, it doesn't provide readers with any helpful information about the Romanian language. Some of the translations are even in Polish, not in Romanian. --Robbie SWE (discusscontribs) 11:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are requesting deletion of a single page? @Robbie SWE --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
@Atcovi: Yes, I am. I just started going through the Romanian pages so more deletions might be necessary in the near future. PS: upon further investigation, we have Romanian/Months and days of the week and Romanian/Numbers from 0 to 999, which contain the same information as the page I proposed for deletion. --Robbie SWE (discusscontribs) 10:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It needs a bit of cleaning up, but is clearly essential for the book as a whole.--Abramsky (discusscontribs) 10:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and clean up.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

World Civilization for High School students[edit]

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

United Kingdom History[edit]

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

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]

The copy of the Civil Code on en.wikibooks, Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code, is actively harmful to the readers by providing law information that are years out of date. It is not explicit whether the whole thing is from a single snapshot in time, and if so, which revision it is. The ROC government already provides translated Civil code that's up to date at It also doesn't try to keep a record of every revision to the Civil Code like at like Also, I'm not sure why it's at wikisource for Chinese and wikibooks for English, but please don't move the proposed for deletion content to wikisource. As I mentioned, hosting outdated legal information is actively harmful to readers. --Makkachin (discusscontribs) 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Being out-of-date is not a valid deletion criterion. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
  • Speedily keep. As does not always archive outdated legal texts, amended Taiwanese laws may be considered evolving works, thus not very good on English Wikisource. As the project starter, I am aware of amended articles. Annotated Republic of China Laws/Central Regulation Standard Act groups unamended articles together for better efficiency to make a page, with Annotated Republic of China Laws/Central Regulation Standard Act/Article 8 listing historical texts. I will soon hide amended articles from the main pages and later move them to subpages. Thanks.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 23:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
    • The harm aspect remains. I would suggest there be a warning header at the top, and a link to the up-to-date translation that's freely provided by the government so users can ignore the harmful content that is kept at this site. --Makkachin (discusscontribs) 00:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
      • What exactly is harmful? This tone is too excessive. Taiwanese governmental translations of legal texts have no official status in courts of law, so any bad translations of current texts may also be harmful. Please be more respectful.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
        • If you didn't like my wording, I can use a more vague terminology and say the existence of this translation is "problematic". If you don't see what's problematic about it, then you didn't understand my explanation and there is no point in reiterating what was already stated. How would you imagine serving completely outdated legal information to the users without any warning serve the reader's benefit? --Makkachin (discusscontribs) 23:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: If this was directly sourced from public domain translations made by the government of China (an if!), does not this better fit to Wikisource? Since in that case, Wikibooks contributors will not be able to expand or correct the text, will they? My if stems from Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code, where it says "The translator is presumed to be the Republic of China, as it appears on the R.O.C. government website." --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 11:48, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


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)


Can I request a delete for this "Suicide Manual"

This book is irresponsible and dangerous. Here are some examples of the dangerous information and positive encouragement to commit suicide it contains.

  • The plastic bag (Suicide bag) has been suggested in Final Exit and has been suggested many times on the ASH and ASM newsgroups. The basic principles were supposed to be quite simple, and thus it made the method seem easy to apply and less complex than other methods, which contributed to its popularity.

  • Death by inhalation of Inert gas is not detectable through any known toxicity test, beyond the signs of suffocation. Only a witness or materials left in the scene can confirm the inhalation as a cause of death.

So just from the two examples we see dangerous advice as "contributed to its popularity" and "only a witness... can confirm the inhalation as a cause of death". So this manual says certain suicide methods are popular but make sure no one is around to witness you committing suicide.

If those two examples are not enough to justify deletion then I humbly ask you to read the rest of this Suicide Manual.

Please may I make a delete request for this irresponsible book.

Here's the link to the bookː

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 23:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Have you studied the two previous RFD discussions for that book, and why it survived both of them? --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 01:23, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

No. I don't really care how they justify the inclusion of this Suicide Manual. I have studied philosophy for decades and I really cannot be bothered anymore directing people to the philosophical question of responsible and ethical actions. None of us can ever be perfect and we can never create a perfect world that would please everyone. If it has to be kept then keep it. There is no ethical basis for its existence so whatever reasons were given must be outside the scope of ethics. All I can say is read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics and then get back to me for a more informed discussion. As an Anarchist I find that the actions of the American branch of Anonymous are actually similar to the people they perceive as the enemy - one example is Tom Cruise and the Church of Scientology - beliefs put into practice in ways that are sometimes destructive and sometimes constructive. Believe what you want. Whatever makes you happy. There are just groups of monkeys calling themselves humans who engage in primate conflict over identity, resources and boundary. Taliban monkeys, American Monkeys, Chinese Monkeys, I'm a Monkey, You are a Monkey. So keep the Suicide Manual written by a certain Monkey because some other Monkeys decided that their group dynamics over-rides the ethical consideration of the individual Monkey who may turn to this manual because they have formed a belief that to commit suicide is to escape the pain of being a Monkey. The day you delete this insidious book is the day you take the first step to being truly human.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 03:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Your own statements negate the knowledge you claim to have in regards to the "philosophy of responsible and ethical actions". --Panic (discusscontribs) 04:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Symbol keep vote.svg Keep per Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide & Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:19, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

To Panic2k4. Oh no you don't get away with a statement without proof. How does my view of the evolved higher functions of a group of primates who have abstracted their needs and desires to beyond the instinctive negate my comment. Just because we have developed language and various other advanced forms of primate functions does not mean that the core primate need is removed. We live in primate families who then form primate societies for the purpose that exists in all primates - survival. So I ask you again "what is the positive purpose of this book" and "what educational value does it impart" - both are the mission statements of Wikibooks. So unless you have all decided that Wikibooks should not follow its own mission statement I can only suggest that we are all at the moment displaying a rather playful aspect of primate dominance over each other with this book and the debate around it being a prime example of our abstract higher functions. Primates in the wild do not commit suicide by placing a plastic bag over their head or write books about it. When you all decide to stop monkeying around and delete this negative book that is not in keeping with Wikibook's mission statement then I will say that you have all been admirably human in your abstraction with regards to the application of our evolved higher functions.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 13:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Panic may have something else in mind, but it looks to me as if you're whining about people who don't bother to learn about what they're mouthing off about, at the same time you are explicitly not bothering to learn about what you're mouthing off about. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm not whining or mouthing off. I read the RFC on the two previous delete discussions and the issue on both was based around NPOV. The issue I'm trying to raise is that the Suicide Manual may be within the scope of the rules set out for these books being included but the rules are not the issue. The issue is ethical because the book is about Suicide. Now we are not dealing with a CDC report (by the way the CDC episode of the Walking Dead with Dr Jenner is also about this ethical dilemma of suicide - and you thought it was just a zombie series.) on suicides because most Wikibook editors are not experts employed in that field. So let me put it to you a different way. I have for years edited the Guitar book here but the worse thing that can happen to an individual who follows it is that they become a better musician. There is no ethical dilemma in the Guitar book but there is in the Suicide Manual. If you were to attempt, or encourage someone else to attempt, some of the methods given in the Suicide Manual even as joke with no intention of death there is still the danger that death may occur accidentally. The issue is ethical and in my opinion it is unethical to allow a ten year old child to read a book where he may then take a bag and try the method on a two year old child. Children do not rationalize upon the images they see. The debate we are having now would have no bearing on a ten year old looking at the picture of the boy with a bag around his head. Look if we delete this book then it must be made clear that this is not because an adult would be in danger it is because pre-puberty childhood has an incomplete filtering system for moral and ethical issues.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 18:42, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

So let's just display a logo on this book (and Marijuana Cultivation by the way). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No. That is not the issue. Cast your mind back to being eight and ten. What sort of books did you read? It is difficult to see your current self in that light because as adults we have coalesced our knowledge and experience to form our adult persona. This adult persona may be different from another adult's persona but essentially our childhood has ended. When I read the "Earthsea" trilogy at the age of ten or eleven the evil mist really did roll into the village and the young Ged showed his magic power by turning the mist back. I wanted to be Ged - I wanted that power - I wanted to name things to have power over them. So I ask you one adult to another do we really want to create a generation of eight to ten old children who consider personal power to be expressed in the fashion shown in this book?

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 21:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that suicide can be unethical (that is the suicide that results from a clear mind, the book does explicitly call attention that most suicides are from people with mental illness, even covers some of the triggers). All ethical considerations involving someone's death effect on others is trumped by the right to self-determination (as a fellow anarchist you should value that) and the book also covers altruistic suicide (self sacrifice). Now assisted suicide/euthanasia can indeed be problematic ethically as it results from the actions of a third party (not that the ethical issues can't be mitigated but that is another discussion).
What I now get from your further comments is that you think the book subject itself has ethical problem and that would be simply solved by its deletion. To that I say the benefits outweigh the negatives, and it has been proven historical that the deletion of knowledge is never positive, but even from a simple educational view point, the prevention of accidents or even to help someone think about its actions and its consequences would be better that conform to the social silence/shame around the issue. --Panic (discusscontribs) 22:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
In re: "All ethical considerations involving someone's death effect on others is trumped by the right to self-determination": I doubt that you've thought through this, or perhaps it was just a careless overstatement. This statement is completely untrue. Your right to self-determination does not trump the right of a train crew to not have nightmares about the selfish suicidal idiot who deliberately jumped in front of the train. Suicide by vehicle isn't acceptable if anyone else gets hurt (or even scared). Or risk the lives of the Search and Rescue people who have to fish your body out of the water. Or make someone else clean up the mess you left behind when you shoot yourself. Or cause trauma when someone unexpectedly finds your dead body. Your right to kill yourself does not "trump" these considerations. The right to "self" determination does not encompass determining nightmares, injuries, extra work, expenses and risks for "others". Once you affect "other" people in any non-trivial way, it's no longer merely "self" determination. You might consider striking or qualifying your previous statement. WhatamIdoing (discusscontribs) 18:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, but if you want to debate it more move this to the book's talk (its better that in our own talk pages). But for sake of other reading, I state that personal liberty and right of self-determination is not the same thing, one has limits the other doesn't but they collide on choosing ways of expression. In any case the examples you chose above place the blame of the impact and action on society in general not specifically on the suicidal. Consider the simple fact that it may have been by lack of knowledge on how to do it in a safer way (if the person was rational, if not then even less blame can be attributed to the actor)... --Panic (discusscontribs) 03:07, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No. That is not the issue. I state again what is your ethical duty as an adult towards young people (think Little Pony stage) who will view the image of that stupid teenager who considered it fun to post a simulated suicide using a plastic bag over his head. Are you children or adults? There is no argument about knowledge being available - it will always be available for adults and since every one normally becomes an adult it is then not a subject about adult reactions to this book. It is always a question of what is your ethical duty as an adult in relation to children. We have customs or laws that determine the age of an adult but I don't think that any of us are really qualified in that area. So unless you can guarantee that this sick image, posted by an individual who needed the protection I am suggesting now at an earlier time in his life, will not have the same impact then I suggest we delete the book. Unless I am speaking to that idiot then I suggest we remove the image as a compromise - a small step to avoid any morbid fascination with the subject developing in very young minds.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 01:21, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I oppose censorship. The presentation of the case for this RFD isn't just censorship, it's censorship promoted using troll tactics. The nomination does not, of course, necessarily lack merit just because it's being promoted via trolling, but that manner of promotion does both cripple the proponent's ability to present a reasonable argument, and render it substantially a waste of time for others to assemble carefully reasoned arguments on the other side (since a skilled BSer can always inexpensively respond with more BS). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:01, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
lol. So when no one wants to accept their own responsibility towards others the argument is turned into the accusation of "you are making me think and therefore you are wasting my time using duplicitous methods because I would have to waste time arguing back which would only make you argue back even more". I think my method of engaging strangers is a lot safer and more ethical than presenting an image of myself with a plastic bag around my head in a simulated suicide. So the issue for you is meǃ Evidently my arguments cripple me - in reality I think there is more chance of that happening if I put a plastic bag around my head. Censorship is not the issue because I've already offered a compromise based on the removal of just the image and the leaving of the text. Remember this is not about you or the other editors here. It is not about me. It is about us - all of us.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 14:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You seem to reduce this book impact to a bad influence, but there isn't any picture to encourage anyone to suicide in real life, telling that it's cool and that you really have to test this method because it doesn't hurt. This book looks more like the French Wikiversity psychology thesis to understand the children suicide (and maybe prevent it). JackPotte (discusscontribs) 14:56, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The image has been removed by Pi zero. Top man. Choice is the freedom to act in the interests of everyone. When people tell you that you do not have the choice to act then we reach an impasse. I am so glad that Pi zero exercised his freedom to act in the interests of others. It is only because individuals are allowed to act upon their own volition and conscience that freedom is preserved. Do not wait for permission to create a better world. Just do it.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 18:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

When I say in the interests of everyone I mean Pi zero has taken a universal ethical position. Sorry did not want anyone to think this was about the editors here. Wikibooks is a world-wide site that on the whole can be accessed most places. We are so used to limiting our view of this site as an English first-language phenomena that we can forget that a ten year Japanese child with no English can visit the English section of this site just as we can visit the Japanese section. I doubt any of us speak Japanese so images would be about the only thing we could apply our attention to. Pi zero has acted in a way that has an impact across the world. The internet is still growing. Eighty percent take-up in the USA and Europe but in many places around fifty percent. Some countries about forty percent or even lower. Long way to go yet.

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 18:37, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I fail to see the basis on which the request is founded. I have read quite some time ago, the educational value of a book relies on the knowledge it provides (i.e. a book is educational in the sense that it provides knowledge). Each individual may find the book's positive purpose within his own convictions, or at least acknowledge a fellow reader might. The effort invested by the authors should not be neglected. I do suggest a NPOV revision. Vito Francisco 03:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

American Studies[edit]

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 2006; note that subpages Our Mission and How To Use This Textbook are meta-material rather than content proper.

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". --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:42, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete if it has not been edited for years then delete it. The subject is covered here or can be included in this book as a chapterː

Sluffs (discusscontribs) 22:15, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete perfectly reasonable deletion imho, per the principle quoted by Dan Polansky.

    Note, folks, these discussions should use bullets with "*" rather than counting lists with "#" as we should do all we can to remind that these are pointedly not votes judged by vote count. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 00:03, 6 October 2016 (UTC)


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]

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 2005; 162 words. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 14:54, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete This description made me search if it applied to a commercial book, published elsewhere. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 18:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Imho someone looking to contribute to such a book would find the existing notes as much of an obstacle as a help. Per the policy page. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 20:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Literally just a statement of intent. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 04:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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)

Famous Runners[edit]

Delete as having no meaningful content, per WB:Deletion: "delete pages with no meaningful content".

The page has two subpages with the following content:

Been so since 2010‎.

If the intent of the book is to collect biographies of famous runners, then the minimum "meaningful content" would be one small biography of at least one runner, by my assessment. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 09:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete According to Wikibooks:Neutral point of view I would have gladly speedily deleted it. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 21:20, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    Frankly, I don't see a NPOV issue. Whether a runner is famous could be relatively objectively determined. My problem is that it is what I would call a sub-stub, a stub too stubby to be kept, and that it has been so for too long. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 17:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete No positive value for future contributors. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 23:26, 9 October 2016 (UTC)