Wikibooks:Requests for deletion
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests |
|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions |
| Requests for (Un)deletion Archives |
|---|
|
Deletion and Undeletion
|
Undeletion[edit]
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:
- Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
- 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.
- 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]
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.
Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.
Electromagnetics[edit]
This book is far too short to be called a book. Since it hasn't been changed in the last months, there is no perspective in my eyes. --Utonsal (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Keep - Wikibooks policy is, I think, to keep books that are in their early stages to allow work to be done on them. Granted that there is little happening on this one at present, the field is vast, and work could easily form around the nucleus that is this single page, given time. Chazz (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Delete In fact, the book appears not to have been edited substantively since 2013 (the most recent contentful edit there appears to have been by QuiteUnusual), and does not appear to provide any meaningful framework for a book. So I don't think there's a viable book there, despite the fact that the apparent topic is big enough to support one. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)- Delete There are stub books, and there are books which have virtually nothing in them, and I'm inclined to think that this is the latter. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Merge This topic are more to A-level Physics topic (from where I am from), perhaps merge to A-level_Physics maybe a wise decision. Decisions by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- If moving Electromagnetics to "A-level_Physics/Electromagnetics", then Electromagnetics/Electrostatics is also to be moved to "A-level_Physics/Electromagnetics/Electrostatics". Right?--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:51, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment This might be better suited for Wikiversity, if any other place - there seems to be little to no progression. This would've probably been slapped with a query tag and deleted after its time was due. I'm not taking a side as I would like to close this myself (to prevent any bias). But I would like @Encik Tekateki: to elaborate more on his position of merging and why this page would hold any water as a part of another established book. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Atcovi: , apologizes for late replies. My reasoning is as followed, as the A-Level Physics by far as I know it do not have any pages about electromagnetism( See: https://www.slideshare.net/CerdasFizik/bab-8-elektromagnet-mind-mapping-spm-fizik , SPM is quivalent to A-level where I am coming from), it is preferred to merge this page to the established books to let others authors to build upon the electromagnetic pages. Although the pages is not complete as of now, if there are good contributor(s) expand the pages in due time, the electromagnet page will become good references in Wikibooks. Proposed by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
Keep - Wikibooks policy is, I think, to keep books that are in their early stages to allow work to be done on them. Granted that there is little happening on this one at present, the field is vast, and work could easily form around the nucleus that is this single page, given time. 
Merge This topic are more to A-level Physics topic (from where I am from), perhaps merge to 
Comment This might be better suited for Wikiversity, if any other place - there seems to be little to no progression. This would've probably been slapped with a query tag and deleted after its time was due. I'm not taking a side as I would like to close this myself (to prevent any bias). But I would like Big Seven Crypto Study[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.This "book" is quite obviously original research as it is the full text of a self-published "study" or "audit" the PDF version of which is hosted on SourceForge. As I note in Talk:Big Seven Crypto Study, I suspect the two original authors mentioned in the text do not really exist. The purpose of this book is to generate some credibility for a very suspicious piece of software called Goldbug Crypto Messenger. I am not a big fan of deleting stuff, so perhaps it is better to review the big fat warning I just added to the top of the book. --Thüringer (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Media_and_Society:_Summer_2019[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research.
- Comment Possible class textbook attempt? Chazz (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I just asked at v:Wikiversity:Import if acceptable there.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 05:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Imported to Wikiversity:Media and Society - Summer 2019. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:05, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Remove the Bridge Crossing[edit]
As I am now cleaning up the Puzzle wikibooks on Puzzles/River Crossing , I came across this pages that needed to be deleted due to the pages are listed as list of puzzles which does not add depth to the puzzle wikibooks (which was causing the book to be nominated for deletion at first place) also this was duplicate of the contents I will be writing later on :
- Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing/Solution
- Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing
- Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge
- Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge/Solution
Exercise as it relates to Disease/Feeling hot for health[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Delete . Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)I was going to delete it, but @JackPotte: has seemingly approved it, so I'm bringing it here instead. The content in this article isn't quite suitable to me (it clearly looks like a work in progress, and the talk page of the parent book would be better?) Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete It now looks like a complete advertising added in an existing book. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per JackPotte, just inserted to advertise Bikram yoga program, no real connection to book. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per above --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Undergraduate Mathematics[edit]
The scope of this book is too broad. The Linear Algebra wikibook is a good example of what such a project could be. I came up with the idea yonks ago on undergrad myself and no-one else has taken interest, because I was new to the platform and sketching out ideas.
I'm happy to contribute to other projects, I just don't want people to click this malformed idea instead.
Knittedbees (discuss • contribs) 08:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Question: Knittedbees many of the pages have a rich history, but I noticed on the logs of some that they were imported in May 2014. Is the bulk of the existing content simply imported from English Wikipedia in 2014? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the idea was to use Wikipedia as a template, but pretty much writing a few books like Analysis, Algebra and Dynamics from scratch focusing on exercises and worked examples would be a better approach (i.e. nothing like the Wikipedia articles I tried importing). (logged out Knittedbees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.57.14 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete it has a lot of content but as explained above they are merely imported articles from Wikipedia in 2014. As such, readers would be better off reading the updated articles on Wikpedia than reading this book. So it makes sense to get rid of it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Question: - As someone with experience in undergrad mathematics, I think the topics in this book are better off as independent wikibooks. Instead, I would favour creating a category of topics that are suitable for undergraduate-level mathematics. P.S: some of the topics are in the wrong category. Stokes' theorem and line integral are in vector calculus, not complex analysis (and there's nothing complex-valued in them, though ideas in line integrals pop up when doing contours and working out complex integrals). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Intellectual Property and the Internet/Arab Spring[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.In the course of trying to form a mental image of everything that already exists in this very raw, semi-coherent book that I seem to have adopted (or that has adopted me, we break-up and get back together several times per month still), I just can't see any path forward for this particular page. While I can see how the Arab Spring could be used to illustrate real-world implications of public policy regarding content ownership, there's no clay to mold here.
- The treatment is too dry and encyclopedic.
- Much of what's there is visually-driven in a way that I interpret as very "un-Wikibooks-like."
- With no pre-existing content tying the events to IP, it would take more effort to bring the prose into focus under that lens than it would to write the content from scratch. If/when I do that, I'd want that work to happen on a page with a broader geographic and temporal scope.
I'm exceedingly new here and will take what's said on the matter as a lesson in the Wikibooks mindset, more than anything. Thanks in advance for any thoughts you choose to share. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar ₨Talk🗩 ⚟ 
My recentmischief 
08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, just an imported article from en.wikipedia in 2012 with some minor cleanup. It has little to do with "Intellectual Property and the Internet" as it is written, and so it is irrelevant to the book topic in this form. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Euclid's Elements[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
 |
was deleted due to it not being a textbook. You are welcome to contribute constructively. You can learn how by reading Using Wikibooks. You can ask any unanswered questions in the project reading room. Thanks. |
Flagged as a new book more than 5 years ago but no development and no pages.--ЗAНИA 
talk 03:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
- Delete , this is pretty uncontroversial I feel. No pages beyond a title page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Centrelink help[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.This page had {{delete}} for a few days, but as the author is still working hard on it, the least we can do is give them a chance.
- Delete It could complement Centrelink, but according to Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? it looks like an inadmissible advertising booklet for a private company. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral while this could be viewed as a breaking the "advertising or self-promotion" rule I think this is pretty borderline in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)- Keep Afaics, it's a how-to about dealing with a government agency — not a private company. Other concerns, such as overall organization, or current lack of completion of some sections, are not RFD-worthy. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Neutral while this could be viewed as a breaking the "advertising or self-promotion" rule I think this is pretty borderline in this instance. --NVQ Carpentry Level 2[edit]
I believe this book needs to be deleted as it contains dangerous information which will put lives at risk for all on site, due to the abundance of miss information contained with in the pages. This book also contains some references from publications which are out of date and plagiarised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.106.244 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- For perspective, this appears to have started with a comment on the book's talk page by a registered user (who hasn't made any edit on any project afaics), after which an IP6 seconded the criticism and then undid itself, and then the above IP also supported the criticism and also posted here. (I've added a section heading to contain those remarks on the book talk page.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Question to 86.182.106.244: can you give any examples of how this book "contains dangerous information" or "miss information" (sic), or is "out of date" or "plagiarised"? Generally books should be fixed rather than discarded if possible. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "Church Meetings" page[edit]
The page The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Church Meetings Has information that could be easily put into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Church Service The page should probably be deleted, and the information from the former page moved to the latter, considering that the "Church Meetings" page only has three sentences of information in it. PeanutHat (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Suggest merge and redirect: I don't think this particularly needs deletion, as this would do the job in as satisfactory manner. If doing this please attribute the merged content from the source page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I think this should be merged with other information on the same subject instead of deleted. User:Abdul_turban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul turban (talk • contribs)
Monopoly rules[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.How To Succeed in College[edit]
Like the previous post, I started this book thinking I would have the time to work on it. I started this book 7 years ago at a time when I thought I would be able to dedicate a fair amount of time to it. Since then, I have not been able to work on it and do not envision having the time to work on it in the future. As the principal author, I encourage the community to delete the book. --Rcragun (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
- @Rcragun: about this and Statistics for Sociology above: if you are the only contributor then WB:SPEEDY applies. Add {{delete|Nominated by the only significant contributor: please delete all pages in book.}} to the main pages. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Monopoly/The Mega Edition speedy deletion[edit]
Request speedy as nonsense/vandalism. I added a speedy tag, but it was removed [1]. Has been previously speedy deleted, but was recreated [2]. Maybe needs creation protection? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Fire Simulation for Engineers[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.I propose to delete this book, because it is now outdated and orphaned. The tools that are described in the text have new incompatible releases, and we do not have anymore the resources needed to update the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanuele.gissi (talk • contribs)
- Keep Although it is outdated, it is good reference point for anyone who is still using the old versions.
- Nominated by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep The book should be updated instead. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
Chess Opening Theory/1. a4/1...e5/2. Ra3[edit]
This page doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the book. 96.234.224.176 (discuss) 03:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Could you please further clarify your standings?
- Asked by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 06:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see any problem with it. Sure, there it's a stub, but that isn't a reason to delete. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Sunvox Reference[edit]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.GCSE Physics[edit]
Nominate to delete this as the book is remained a stubs over 8 years. I already moved to partly developed contents to 9-1 Physics/Conservation of energy Also GCSE has moved to 9-1 curriculum in 2020.
Proposed deletion by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment Looks as if the small amount of content produced for this book was moved to another book. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete Not a useful book and GCSE programmes change every year and vary by exam board. --ЗAНИA
talk 09:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC) - Delete Once moved "GCSE Physics/Energy for the Home/Heating Houses" to 9-1 Physics/Conservation of energy, there is no content other than empty sections.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
How to Convert Videos for the iPod[edit]
Nominate to delete this due to there are many instructional texts at Wikihow projects:
https://www.wikihow.com/Put-Video-on-Your-iPod https://www.wikihow.com/Put-Videos-on-an-iPod-Touch
Proposed by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because the existence of something elsewhere is not a valid reason to delete material from our collection. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)- Merge This could be a good page in the Wikibook Do-It-Yourself, rather then a standalone book with one page. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oppose because the existence of something elsewhere is not a valid reason to delete material from our collection. --