Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFU)
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]

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

PostgreSQL/Working with PostgreSQL[edit]

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

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.


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.

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)

A History of Nejd[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.

A-level General Studies[edit]

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


I've recently come across the contributions of User:Efex. If I understand this correctly, he is adding some random English text found online, and then translating this to ZH in order to create bilingual books aimed at fluency improvement for language learners. However, his EN texts are taken from copyrighted sources, so even his translations are copyright violations.

I certainly admire his dedication and consistency. However, we are currently hosting a plethora of copyvios, and this needs to be immediately dealt with. Category:English-Hanzi contains the pages in question. These pages could easily be speedied, but, following the suggestion of Alex, I am listing the issue here in order to get the community involved and see if we can come up with an alternative solution to this problem.

Vito Genovese 07:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, Category:English-Hanzi doesn't only contain copyvios (eg: English-Hanzi/A new year). So we would need to inventory each case to speedy. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record: there is also Category:Pinyin.
Vito Genovese 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the contributions of User:Efex. As a native Mandarin speaker, I have noticed many entries under Category:Pinyin using Gwoyeu Romatzyh made in 1920s distinguishing different tones by different spellings but too complex to easily learn. Some entries under Pinyin are just dictionary materials. If I were already an administrator here, I would block this questionable user and massively delete the contributions thereof. Is there any Chinese-speaking administrator here yet?--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 00:08, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Jusjih: Can you suggest why User:Efex might be doing these things? I think that would be helpful for us to understand; we've been aware for some months that the user's contributions include a lot of dictionary and news content that doesn't belong on Wikibooks, but I'd be much more comfortable if I had some working theory about what their motive might be. (I'm not the slightest bit Chinese-speaking myself.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I'm honestly not sure why this was let to continue on for months, when it's quite apparent that a good portion of the content consists of copyright violations that do not belong on Wikibooks. I've deleted a few pages of the book already, before realizing it wasn't limited to just a few pages.. rather a good portion of them, which will all need to be checked now if the book is kept. --Az1568 (discusscontribs) 11:28, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
With apologies because I was mailed about this a couple of weeks ago... I'm inclined to delete but want to consider it further. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 11:55, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

English-Hanzi is useful for learning Chinese as well as English. Could we amend the pages like this for avoiding copyright violation?--Efex3 (discusscontribs) 12:29, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Leaving out some parts like that does not prevent a copyright problem, especially not if it's done on a massive scale. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
We could amend all related articles if necessary.--Efex3 (discusscontribs) 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
@Pi zero: I do not even know who User:Efex really is. Many contributions are sentences being too disorganized to allow new Chinese learners to easily use, thus potentially out of scope, whether copyvio or not. @Efex3: Your answer may not be very helpful to keep your contributions.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 23:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Advantages Social Media Marketing[edit]

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

High School Life Science/Introduction to Vertebrates[edit]

Page with very little useful content. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) What do you think? 17:39, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as a test. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 18:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Judo Techniques[edit]

This is a book full of redlinks, and has not been edited since 2010. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 02:03, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done JackPotte (discusscontribs) 12:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Engineering Tables[edit]

This is not a book, more like a collection of tables. Should either be deleted or moved to userspace. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose That material is transcluded in multiple other books. They're book content so they belong in a content space, not in userspace (which is for single-owner non-content) nor even in project space or template space (which are multi-owner but still non-content). They're shared by multiple books so they don't really belong in any one of those books. The collection seems a reasonable solution. I'm open to alternative ways to host the material, though the main problem I see is with the wording of the introduction (which maybe I'll try to tweak, now [‍Yes check.svg Done ]). --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose A well-organised collection of tables can make for a perfectly useful Engineering handbook. --Duplode (discusscontribs) 10:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose deletion. It looks well written.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

History of Iraq[edit]

The book is imported from Enwiki. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 14:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Abandoned stub. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As JackPotte said. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment : If deleted, what will happen to its two subpages?--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    These two Wikipedia copies would be deleted because we're voting for the whole book. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 07:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
    Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as Wikipedia still has imported materials and the adaption here has been unsuccessful.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicide/Toxification/Repackaging drugs in capsules[edit]

This page is a stub with nothing but an unsourced and unformatted text relating to amitriptyline and capsules together, that already exists on Suicide/Amitriptyline_cocktail. I believe Capsules is already a well rounded page which could have some other info about capsules in the book moved here too.

I've never really used wiki's much before so sorry if I've got anything wrong!

--Becn0ir (discusscontribs)
I believe that it doesn't make sense to delete one book page, actually this topic had already been discussed two times:
  1. Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide
  2. Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2)
JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
I saw those rfds, I don't have an issue with the content just this page that doesn't need to be in the book. Not sure if I went about it the right way or if there's a way to just delete what are in essence duplicate pages when starting to tidy it up a little. --Becn0ir (discusscontribs)
There is another one, it is above us. Suicide/Suffocation. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Quest ActiveRoles Server[edit]

This is a book full of redlinks with 1 actual link. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 14:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done JackPotte (discusscontribs) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics and Art[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)20:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree, this cannot be completed; the only person who could complete it from the outline is the original author who presumably had a coherent vision for it. Some outlines provide useful guidance for crowdsourced book writing; this one does not. I'm sorry it didn't get written, as I'd be interested to read it; but, here we are. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete empty. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
Symbol delete vote.svg Delete if no answer from the editor to whom I left the notices at talk page and by email.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


This book is just code, without no information whasoever. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)21:46, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol merge vote.svg Merge into C++ C# Programming. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Isn't that C Sharp? I don't think a program written in whichever-language-it-is would be likely to fit into a book about the language. A book about the algorithm is conceivable. If possible, I'd be interested to hear the thoughts of the user who created the page. I see from the page history it was queried and kept, a couple of weeks after its creation. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:14, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    This algorithm is not any program: this is a textbook case. For this reason, I really believe that it could be placed at the end of the C sharp book, as an implementation example, in a library of common codes. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 11:21, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
    Ah. Okay, fair enough. In that case, given there's no evidence of development of the book, I'm fine with Symbol merge vote.svg Merge. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

VCE Chemistry[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)21:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

A-level English[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)21:54, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep 21 pages with pictures can constitute a small book. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
They should put them up on the front page. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mixing and Mastering[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)21:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Mixing and Mastering/Bass Mixdown appears to be worth something. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 23:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep while not full of red links.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 00:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


This cookbook will never be updated. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)21:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete with Cookbook:Menus/Menu-Style01 Blank. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as there seems to be potential to improve. I just added missing RFD tags and notified the contributor.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 02:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep . This page is not a cookbook by itself, but rather it is one of many pages in the Wikibooks main Cookbook. It was intended to add brief introduction to menus (and to the Cookbook 'Menus' category) to the Cookbook. In my opinion, menus are a common feature of both electronic and print cookbooks. I thought the Cookbook was lacking without this functionality and so I created this page, the 'Menus' category, the blank menu template and and four associated actual Menus in that category. I would also add that this page is referenced on the main page of the Cookbook. While the 'Menus' functionality may not have attracted a lot of other contributors so far, I think it's worth keeping. Austncorp (discusscontribs) 15:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IB Environmental Studies[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)22:07, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep it seems to me that Category:Subject:IB Diploma Programme regularly evolves. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
If it is completed it could help me out in my IB school. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 02:56, 14 April 2017 (UTC)


This book will never be finished, and the outline is incomplete. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)22:09, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete this index looks like a copypasta, which has no interest in itself. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol comment vote.svg Comment : I wonder if delinking its concept index will be useful.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 01:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)22:16, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol wait vote.svg Wait - December 2016‎ is not so far I suppose. The author could be back at the end of the school year. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 23:00, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Symfony 3 Certification Guide[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs)22:17, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol wait vote.svg Wait - I have the skills to complete this one, but not this week-end please :) JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:42, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    You know what Symfony 3 is? PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 22:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
    Actually I practice it every day for six months now, and I'm still feeling that it's the beginning. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

History of Sindh[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol merge vote.svg Merge the existing page into Pakistani History. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Food Safety Guide[edit]

This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 22:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete too small to be helpful for six months. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:45, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol keep vote.svg Keep . There is a subpage, not all red links.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 03:58, 27 April 2017 (UTC)


This book is full of redlinks that will never be completed. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 22:22, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

  1. Symbol delete vote.svg Delete the content seems pretty obvious, unless CACS/User Conundrum which is more an essay than a pedagogic book. JackPotte (discusscontribs) 22:49, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How to Survive in Minecraft[edit]

Nominating this book and all its related pages. I believe it does not meet project scope: Wikibooks is not a video game strategy guide. This book seems only to serve as a walkthrough to the game which is counter to the project's scope. Only (discusscontribs) 19:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The exclusion of video game strategy guides has been controversial for as long as I've been on Wikibooks (which has somehow gotten to be quite a while, now). There have been some pretty strongly negative things said about the exclusion, which preferably we should track down in the archives and post a link here (rather than have me rattle off a flawed rendition from memory). That's one of two reasons I declined to speedy-delete the book. The other reason is, it looks as if a considerable amount has already been written, and if the community decides it should go, the author should definitely be given plenty of opportunity to move it elsewhere. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 19:42, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
    • I've poked a bit in searching but haven't seen anything in my cursory glances. Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Final Fantasy VIII seems to have some discussion of it, but that's from 2009; I also saw some of the 2006/2007 discussions about implementing this policy in the first place. I'm sure users who have been here longer than I have might know where else to look or have a better insight. As an outsider to this project (but an admin elsewhere), I don't mean to ruffle feathers...just nominating based on the policies I saw in front of me. Only (discusscontribs) 19:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
      • @Only: It's a reasonable nomination based on stated policy, and imo your part in the matter should be understood as entirely well-meant, quite independent of whatever the community decides to do with the nomination.

        I think the discussion I'm remembering mentioned Jimmy Wales (or of course possibly called Jimbo), so that might provide a basis for keyword search. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 22:33, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

        • If we keep WB:GUIDE unchanged then we should advise the contributor to use StrategyWiki. Otherwise, I would really like to guide through some games.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 04:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
    • My introduction to this issue was probably from a discussion in 2010 — which I do not recommend for itself (it starts with the words "I am not trying to stir up trouble"), but which does contain a probably-useful summary of how the policy came about — from the What is Wikibooks talk page, called "Wikia promotion", that was started by Thekohser. (For perspective, Thekohser's account has been globally locked again as of a few days ago.) The summary was assembled by Abd; link. I tentatively plan to remark here on the content after taking some time to think on it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 15:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)