Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Pixilang
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.I am unclear why this book was speedily deleted. There does not seem to be anything particularly objectionable about the cached version still visible on Google. Could it be reinstated, at least temporarily for a formal RFD process and to give the author a chance to take a backup copy? Recent Runes (talk) 11:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think it qualifies for 'web host' either. I think it might be the work of a vandal that made Adrignola think it's a violation. However, Google doesn't seem to cache hists so I'm stuck here. :) Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- BTW Recent Runes, you're now an admin so you should be able to view deleted stuff? Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 11:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was probably being over-cautious in case I restored it by mistake, but it looks like the last version on 25 June is the same as the current google version. I think I could even restore it myself, but I would prefer not to reverse Adrignola's action in case I am missing something. Recent Runes (talk) 12:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I have restored the page temporarily. I think giving the author a chance to make a backup copy and people without tools being able to review the whole history are both good reasons to temporarily restore the page. The restoration should be considered temporary unless consensus here is to keep. --darklama 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
There is actually a ruwiki article on Pixilang. Probably not a webhost violation. If no other rationale is given, I'd !vote 'keep'. Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 13:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- There used to be an English Wikipedia article too, but it was deleted in 2007. (see rationale) The Wikibook seems to have been writen by the creator of Pixilang, so it could be argued that he is just using Wikibooks to promote his own homebrew project which is itself not particularly notable. Recent Runes (talk) 18:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Wikibooks doesn't have COI or notability requirements like Wikipedia. Google had 2,440 results for Pixilang when I searched and Google hosts a copy of it and has a manual for it. However there could still be problems with verification unless there are multiple sources that can be cited. --darklama 20:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
As a teacher in the U.S. that uses Pixilang (and this reference), this is one of the few resources I can send students and colleagues to. Please understand that Pixilang is not a commercial product, but an open source development language. As such, I believe this wikibook is a translation of the ru.wikibooks page as English is not the developers language. Theoretically, as more English speakers use it, it could be developed and advanced openly as the development language and subsequent projects contribute to the language and documentation. In short: worth keeping! -Vblank (not a Wikibooks editor, added 14 October 2010)
- Um. Here we have a case of a teacher using a Wikibook as a textbook. Which would seem to me to be what WB is meant for. Would this not be a strong
Keep ? Chazz (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2010 (UTC) - Keep per Chazz, then. Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 15:25, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
- Keep I think the free availability of the software source code gives independent authors the information they need to be able to contribute to the book, so multiple sources are not necessary for verification. This is stronger in principle than books on commercial software like Mathematica where the information about the language ultimately comes from the company who created it, supplemented with observations by people using the product. Recent Runes (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
If there is no rationale for deletion for some more time, I think this discussion can be closed as speedily kept (zero argument for deletion). Kayau (talk | email | contribs) 05:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)