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

Undeletion[edit]

Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

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

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

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

Deletion[edit]

Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

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]

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

The Wrestling Universe[edit]

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

Wikibooks:Undergraduate Mathematics/Continuous function[edit]

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

Wikibooks:Undergraduate Mathematics/Expectation/Expected value[edit]

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

Trigonometry/Trigonometric_identities[edit]

This page is now redundant with the other pages in the Trignomentry book. It is also left unused , very little content and few contributors.--Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 08:34, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. No discussion on this issue? Or should I mark it for speedy? --Leaderboard (discusscontribs) 17:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
like this page has enough info to educate readers. It could also be left for expansion by a different user later on, what'd you think about this? (btw can you show the other pages with "very little content"?) --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 08:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Dinosaur Alphabet[edit]

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

Pragmalinguistic peculiarities of English Slogan in Fashion Domain[edit]

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

Template:Booksearch[edit]

An unnecessary and nearly-unused wrapper for Template:Book search. Liam987 talk 18:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Template:Book search was created before Template:Booksearch, and since these two templates have the same content (except Template:Book search has cats), i've gone ahead and left Template:Booksearch as a redirect to Template:Book search. --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 19:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
A soft redirect doesn't work for a template, as the soft redirect will be transcluded whenever the template is used. I've made it a normal redirect. Liam987 talk 12:28, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. --Atcovi (talkcontribs) 12:40, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm I right in assuming that this discussion is ended and the solution applied by the proponent satisfies as being better than an outright deletion ? (Will assume yes if no reply is forthcoming) --Panic (discusscontribs) 01:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

I propose this hole pywikibot manual for deleting. The origin pywikibot manual is hold by mw:, you'll find it as mw:Manual:Pywikibot with all it's content. The pages at Wikibooks are just older copies, they are outdated and nobody will update it here. The local copy may confuse developers and the duplication is not useful at all. Xqt (discusscontribs) 16:10, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you propose that the media wiki book be only hosted by Wikibooks (it seems the better project to have it), not that I particularly care, only addressing your duplication concern. I really don't see lack of advancement in itself as a proper reason for deletion. --Panic (discusscontribs) 16:36, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
The manual is nearby the Mediawiki software (and its manual) where it concerns to. Maybe it was the first thought coming from meta. It does not make any sense to spread manuals on several platforms, especially when nobody keeps it up-to-date. This would be confusing bot owners. It is a property of that instruction manual of an often used bot framework in perpetual beta state to be outdated within a short time. Therefor I guess it would be a good idea to delete this page duplications, which you can verify by the version histories. Xqt (discusscontribs) 19:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
I fail to see the rationality in discussing the notions like "nearby" when we are talking about the same Internet software infrastructure and same hardware setup (Wikimedia) especially after the merging efforts being made. In any case this isn't the place to argue about that particular need.
I'm not taking a position of opposition against your request at present, just pointing out that the grounds your are formulating it are very weak and in my view misdirected...
In regards to Wikibooks the nearness to the software isn't an issues, nor is it the duplication, in fact the issues you raised (confusion, etc) are good points to press the developers to, especially in light of general Wikimedia policies that fragmented the scope of each wiki subproject, move the manual here (in fact every manual that resides in the Media Wiki project), even facilitating future translations of the same. Our project is the best one to develop manuals and textbooks, that unarguably is our raison detre. Look for instance how we centralized our use of images on Commons, the logic is the same... --Panic (discusscontribs) 20:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Panic2k4, Xqt: It seems to me that since these manuals are for Mediawiki software, and are self-referential to Wikimedia, they should be kept at Mediawiki, especially since the software is used for non-Wikimedia sites. If we imported the manuals, it would follow that we should import all the descriptions of extensions and parser functions and so forth. That's what the Mediawiki website is for; to host it all here would muddle our mission and would be self-referential. But that is all a whole debate in itself. If we're going to have one, we should have them all, and so it makes no sense just having this one manual here, which is only an outdated version of the one at Mediawiki anyway. Liam987 talk 21:01, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete per my rationale above. Liam987 talk 21:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Delete. it is a mess, unlikely to be fixed. this was imported from meta, Pywikibot/userlib.py is some automated code documentation, which we already have on https://doc.wikimedia.org/pywikibot/. John Vandenberg (discusscontribs) 14:58, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Delete. @Liam987, Panic2k4, Xqt: As above: confusing, outdated, and inconsistent with the status of the rest of our (MediaWiki-based) documentation. Fhocutt (WMF) (discusscontribs) 20:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Karadak ( Kosovo), during World War II[edit]

I know nothing about the subject and hoped this book would help me remedy that, but it did not because it is mostly illegible. (Computer translation from Albanian?). I don't think that wikibooks should have such books. Jcwf (discusscontribs) 12:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

  • We generally don't delete a book merely because it needs improvement; that's contrary to the wiki philosophy. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
    • No, my stuff needs improvement too at times, but at least it is improvable. When things are illegible to the point of being incomprehensible improvement is not really possible for other users. I do think that is a considerable differenceJcwf (discusscontribs) 05:31, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
      • IIRC, deleting a book because it's simply unimprovable has been done before, and is not without precedent. Kayau (talk · contribs) 17:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This was a copyvio of [1]. John Vandenberg (discusscontribs) 00:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

...improvement/ help[edit]

The book is nominated to delete your turn, is done once the data processing and translation to improve as appropriate .. you sit to discuss these consequences you here. I've said a few words there ..ot give me a little time editing... Improvement.--Rrjedha (discusscontribs) 15:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Could you clarify the possible copyvio (copyright violation)? Kayau (talk · contribs) 17:28, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete because the last section (Battle of Myqybaba willge) has several reference numbers from 13 to 22 inside square brackets which suggest this was copied and pasted from somewhere else. Not attributing properly is a copyright violation, 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 23:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thursday Club's Diseases All Medstudents Should Understand[edit]

This book has been stalled since May 2013, and only has one sub-page (Thursday Club's Diseases All Medstudents Should Understand/Alcoholic Liver Disease), which appears to replicate the concepts of a sub-page of an existing book (Hepatology/Alcoholic Liver Disease). Green Giant (discusscontribs) 09:50, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book[edit]

As the principle contributor to this book, it is with mixed feelings that I nominate it for deletion. Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book is actually a success story. It became so widely used by the Pathfinder Community, that it was officially adopted by the North American Division of Seventh-day Adventists Youth Ministries department, which is responsible for the Pathfinder organization. They invited me to host the book on their servers which has allowed me to expand it greatly by adding more of the Pathfinder curricula to it - the added curricula would be in violation of the NPOV policy here, as it promotes our religious doctrine. Development effort moved to the new location in 2012, though I have been performing low-level maintenance here at WB since then.

In addition to the NPOV problems that prevent me from hosting the entire corpus here, I have come to rely various extensions on the new site that are not available here, including language translation, and an improved DPL extension which enables us to create automated indices. Further, I am now able to include images of the honor insignia (i.e., merit badges) on the new site: copyright considerations would prevent me from doing so here.

All new material (including new honors) introduced since the new site was developed have been added only to the new site, but members of the Pathfinder Community still come here and are then unhappy that they can't find the new material. Since it would double my workload to maintain it at the same level in both locations, I request that it be removed from here. My hope is that by doing so, our users will find the new site. The WB community could help with that by allowing the replacement of the main page of the book with a link to the new site.

None of this would have been possible without Wikibooks, and I owe a deeply felt sense of gratitude to the community here. Thank you for considering my request. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 00:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Much of the content can be salvaged into other works, especially into the Wikijunior namespace. I'm willing to work on this if no one wishes to salvage it in its current form... --Panic (discusscontribs) 23:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to migrating the material to other works. Some of it can be merged to other works (Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Arts and Crafts/Origami is one example). I'm sure there are other examples as well. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 12:57, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It has been two weeks since I made the request - can we either delete it or move it aside? --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 23:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
What's the hurry? Abyssal (discusscontribs) 01:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
The work in question was unconstructively edited today. I would prefer to not spend my time maintaining it when it could be spent dismantling it. Two weeks is plenty of time for discussion, and the longer it goes without action, the more of my time it demands. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 01:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Would it be a good enough compromise to rename the book to something generic (e.g. "Content from AYHAB") and remove it from highly-visible places (e.g. featured books)?--Duplode (discusscontribs) 19:39, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I think that would be OK. I'll start that as soon as I have a big chunk of time. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 19:53, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

I have a new proposal. Would it be OK to replace every page in this book with a note directing readers to its new home? The material would not be "deleted" per se, because the content would still be available in its history. Then anyone who would want to salvage parts of it into Wikijunior or merge portions into other works would be able to do so, and readers would know where to find the version that is being actively developed. I'd like some discussion on this so that I have community support and I won't get blocked or have my edits rolled back. Thanks. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 23:45, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I object to the renaming as proposed as it does not serve any purpose for wikibooks or wikibooks users and even goes against best practices to book naming, the issue is the proposed name not the renaming in itself.
I also object to replacing or posting a note on every page, however I see no issue in having a note in the cover (this has been done before) and even a more detailed description of the issues as described here being part of the author´s page on the work.
I also note that no one is objecting to the deletion of the work, so I would like to request a clarification of what this discussion is now about if the proposal has changed or been removed, if so the place to discuss any structural change to the book is not the RfD area as it just makes things harder to follow.
In any case my request still stands, if the work is to be removed, I wish to salvage part of the content. --Panic (discusscontribs) 18:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I prefer for it to be deleted. But after three weeks and not a single vote either up or down, I don't know where to go from here. How long do we wait on such requests? Is it sufficient for there to be no objections? --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 23:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Anyone can close the precess, but since you are the proponent and I also made a request none of us should be doing that. I agree with you that 7 days from the last post should be enough, so taking the activity on the discussion from 5 August 2015 as the last contributive post I think we are again overdue to a closing, if no one does it in the next 2 days I will do it. Since I'll be editing the pages an administrative deletion is not required at present.
I urge you to post a notice on the cover to the new location and include in it that the license is not completely compatible (I don't know the details but it was implied that at least some images aren't) and if you wish to do something about the edit history of the pages do it now (it may be important for the license and copyrights of your derivative work at the new location). --Panic (discusscontribs) 00:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I imported the full history when I moved it to the new server. I'll add a link to the new location, explanation, and licensing compatibility to the main page this evening. --Jomegat (discusscontribs) 12:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep - the work is licensed under CC-BY-SA-3.0 which is irrevocable. It doesn't contain objectionable material, so there is no reason to delete it. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 23:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Esper[edit]

The wikibook Esper and its associated pages are essentially a personal wiki. This is not a conlang of note and there is no reason for it to exist on Wikibooks. The creator of Esper and its Wikibooks page also created an Esper article on Wikipedia which has since been userfied and deletion for this same reason. 89.240.76.148 (discuss) 09:30, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esper (language). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Liam987 talk 15:25, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, but perhaps transfer it to Wikiversity which might be able to host this kind of material. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 23:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

4chan Chronicle[edit]

This is more a set of external links with little work done on creating books over six months. Basically just a huge self-congratulatory pat-on-the-back. This "book" contravenes WB:SOAP with comments like "One of the key's to 4chan's success was that it recreated a captivating ephermeral tradition built on reposting the best and forgetting the worst, (perhaps not seen since the invention of writing, as the Ancient Greeks note)" and "/b/ is consumed by Cancer. Moot decides that forcing out users is not such a bad idea after all, and screws with it's CSS to unleashing flashing lights, music loops, and other horrors upon the unlucky survivors." It contravenes WB:HOST because it is being used to host a link-farm rather than creating content. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote it in the style of a 4chan user, because that is the only way to really see it's history for what it is, through our deeply biased point of view. I disagree on the comment about a link farm, because these are important primary sources that I've noted down, and their authors no longer have any self interest after nearly a decade. However, it was simply too much work for one man to document, so I agree that it probably a poor fit for Wikibooks. I will move it over back to my own wiki, and improve it on my own, so as long as I can export the pages. Antonizoon (discusscontribs) 01:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Have you seen the Wikibooks:Manual of Style? Sure it is a proposal but it is a good system to follow. The style of a 4chan user is fine on a message-board but this wiki is for writing instructional textbooks and you were definitely headed down the wrong road with this "book". 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 02:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
@46.254.186.36: I must object to "this wiki is for writing instructional textbooks and you were definitely headed down the wrong road". For as long as I can remember "Wikibooks is for instructional textbooks" has been one heuristic among many, and not a hard rule. Is the Cookbook an instructional textbook? What about Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter? Duplode (discusscontribs) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
At least for the Muggles' Guide, the intent is that it should be at least in part a textbook. IMO it started off down the wrong road, and it should have been more about the techniques used in the writing that seem to have made it into something of a classic. I am doing my humble best to bend it in that direction, but my skills in English analysis are somewhat lacking. I definitely can't speak for the cookbook, however it does seem to me that cookbooks, being collections of methods for achieving certain outcomes, are effectively textbooks, albeit not high school or college level instructional texts. Chazz (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've backed up the data from the page. You may do whatever you wish on the Wikibook now. Antonizoon (discusscontribs) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

While there may be issues and everyone is granted an opinion, you have been working the project alone and very recently for our time-frames (February 2015‎). This RfD has no real merit, the critiques could have been better done had it urged you to make modifications or even had the proponent attempted to join into the effort. The other issue is that the RfD is by an unregistered user, so while the points made should be considered your position automatically is given more consideration due to the basic commitment to register with the project, even more since you have committed content to it.
As it stands I see nothing objectionable or unfixable. We do not delete stubs. I'm not closely aware of informed on the subject matter, but even I can recognize the cultural relevance of the proposed task. If you wish not to defend your own efforts or viewpoints there is nothing that can be done... well... I am inclined to object to the deletion even if you decide to cease your contributions because of this hackle... --Panic (discusscontribs) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above. --Panic (discusscontribs) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Panic2k4: if you are not familiar with the subject, I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article at w:4chan, which covers the topic far better than this book. This material really isn't suited to Wikibooks. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
It depends on the approach, how educational (historically informative) it becomes. As it is to me it presents an attempted time-line and identification of relevant people (we have already several other projects that do the same around other subjects). That 4chan (for good or bad) is a cultural reference, can't be refuted. I see no reason to push for a deletion at this point, in fact I see as more damaging the alienation of a contributive editor. --Panic (discusscontribs) 05:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
We already have an excellent attempt to record the history of 4chan (again I urge you to look at the Wikipedia article), without using tripe like "Takbir, m*therf*cker." If this book took the article as a model rather than just writing a directory of who was who, then that would be something worth having on Wikibooks. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I'm just going to note that this nomination is invalid per policy as it was created by an unregistered anonymous user. As they seem to know their way around wikis quite well, and are participating in votes on other projects. I'm going to strongly suggest that they either register an account or log into their current one in order to move forward with this. --Az1568 (discusscontribs) 07:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

@Az1568: - sorry but the policy says nothing of the kind. It states that "[every] registered Wikibooks user can participate in the discussion" but does not say that anonymous users can't nominate for deletion or take part. I strongly suggest that there is nothing wrong with being an anonymous user and equally there is nothing wrong with taking part in discussions on other Wikimedia wikis (or are you going to suggest that there is a policy on that too?). 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Lets not be obtuse, the wording clearly makes a distinction, even you aren't arguing about that, so why make the distinction in the first place ? Now, as I initially stated (and since I'm so old on the project) we don't object to an open participation but your unregistered status does put you in a very low standing on this process.
No one is dismissing your views and opinions, I even agree with some of it even if I think you have gone about it in a very destructive way.
It is clear and logic to me that an unregistered user wouldn't (and shouldn't) be able to run home a deletion process against a contributive user (even an unregistered one, whatever the arguments) if there is no registered user seconding him on his position. I leave it up to you to consider the why this should be so...--Panic (discusscontribs) 04:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)