Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

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

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 (discuss • contribs) 04:26, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

where do you want it merged to? QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:58, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

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

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

PostgreSQL/Working with PostgreSQL

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

Cookbook:Space Cake

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

List of Computational Sustainability Courses

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

Annotated Republic of China Laws/Civil Code

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

Less

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

Suicide/Suffocation

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

American Studies

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

Conphilosophy

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 (discuss • contribs) 10:48, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete This empty content may penalize the other books in the Web indexing, but I'm searching for a strong proof before employing this argument in the policy. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:36, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Merge into the Conworld book. I don't think deletion is appropriate, as the content is not null; there appears to be some thought that went into the outline and might therefore be usefully preserved. I floated the idea of such a merge at the previous nomination for this book, at which time I also explained my opposition to deletion. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Pi zero: Which sentences in there do you consider to be "not null" content? I don't find any such sentences. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, I do not see any "thought" that went into outline. The outline on the page is this, hidden underneath verbiage:
    • Conphilosophy/Definition
    • Conphilosophy/Branches
    • Conphilosophy/Branches/Metaphysics (added to this post later)
    • Conphilosophy/Branches/Epistemology (added to this post later)
    • Conphilosophy/Branches/Ethics (added to this post later)
    • Conphilosophy/Branches/Philosophical logic (added to this post later)
    • Conphilosophy/Branches/Mathematical logic (added to this post later)
    • Conphilosophy/Examples
    • Conphilosophy/History
    • Conphilosophy/Topics
    • Conphilosophy/Lists
    • Conphilosophy/References
  • --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Let's try a different angle: "Conphilosophy" is not anything at all, as a subject. Indeed, Google: "conphilosophy" finds only 388 pages on the whole of web. What is a constructed philosophy as opposed to philosophy without a modifier? As for conlang, I understand: that is a constructed language, one that is not naturally occurring. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep , or 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 (discuss • contribs) 05:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A History of Nejd

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

User:ハマスジャパン新聞

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

A-level General Studies

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

English-Hanzi

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 (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

For the record: there is also Category:Pinyin.

Vito Genovese 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 02:51, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 17:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

We could amend all related articles if necessary.--Efex3 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 23:26, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Today I couldn't find any more copyright violation. Do you think we could close this vote please? JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Advantages Social Media Marketing

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

High School Life Science/Introduction to Vertebrates

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 (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Judo Techniques

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

Done JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Engineering Tables

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)

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 [‍ Done ]). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose A well-organised collection of tables can make for a perfectly useful Engineering handbook. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Oppose deletion. It looks well written.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Merge Contents of this book useful for other books should be merged there as appendices. This book is not an instructional resource, only a mere reference, and therefore is not in the scope of Wikibooks as described in WB:WIW (although not explicitly). Also, such content fits better the scope of Wikipedia, where such collection is possible there with the book creator. --Strange quark (discuss • contribs) 03:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

They're being used as appendices now; it's just that there happen to be multiple books that use them, and all the tables are being kept in one place. Logically, if the material is so suitable for books that it's used in several of them, that can't make it less suitable for books, presumably. Wikipedia isn't an in-depth reference; that's part of the point of an encyclopedia, that it covers everything but in less depth than books on the various subjects would. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

History of Iraq

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

• Delete Abandoned stub. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 19:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Delete As JackPotte said. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 10:52, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment : If deleted, what will happen to its two subpages?--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  These two Wikipedia copies would be deleted because we're voting for the whole book. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

  Delete as Wikipedia still has imported materials and the adaption here has been unsuccessful.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Suicide/Toxification/Repackaging drugs in capsules

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 (discuss • contribs)

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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs)

There is another one, it is above us. Suicide/Suffocation. PokestarFan (talk) (contribs) 19:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Quest ActiveRoles Server

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

Done JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Mathematics and Art

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

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 (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete empty. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Delete if no answer from the editor to whom I left the notices at talk page and by email.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

K-Means++

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

• Merge into C++ C# Programming. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 Merge. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

VCE Chemistry

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

• Delete Abandoned stub. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:35, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
• Comment VCE Chemistry/Stoichiometry is not what I'd call a stub. It does appear to be the only nontrivial element of the book. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
• Keep while not full of red links.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

A-level English

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

1. Keep 21 pages with pictures can constitute a small book. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 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

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

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

Cookbook:Menus

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

1. Delete with Cookbook:Menus/Menu-Style01 Blank. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Keep as there seems to be potential to improve. I just added missing RFD tags and notified the contributor.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
3. 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 (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

IB Environmental Studies

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

1. Keep it seems to me that Category:Subject:IB Diploma Programme regularly evolves. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 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)

MBS

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

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

Scribus

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

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

Symfony 3 Certification Guide

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

1. Wait - I have the skills to complete this one, but not this week-end please :) JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

History of Sindh

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

1. Merge the existing page into Pakistani History. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Food Safety Guide

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

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

CACS

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

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

How to Survive in Minecraft

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 (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

• 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 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 (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikibooks for everyone

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

Template:Deleted page

And the following pages which transclude it:

• Pokemon
• Template:Banned user
• Auction
• Template:WoW

It's superseded by the MediaWiki feature which allows create-protection (Special:ProtectedTitles). If needed those four titles can be create protected. Guanaco (discuss • contribs) 06:18, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to this deletion, but what about the people who are not concerned by the create-protection? Our admins have at least this heads-up today (the protected warning looks like the deleted one, and its reason is limited to a few characters and not editable), and the bots can easily understand it too. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

• Keep I see no grounds for deletion. It's a clear, easy-to-understand way of providing information to users, clearer, probably more polite, and technically more straightforward than the bells-and-whistles MediaWiki feature. If someone chooses to use this, I see no reason they should be forced to use the other feature instead. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:31, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  @Pi zero: One problem with this (and Template:Naming policy notice) is that they show up on Random book. I found one at Overview after six tries. I agree with you about clarity and politeness, so let's update MediaWiki:Titleprotected, MediaWiki:Noarticletext-nopermission, and MediaWiki:Titleprotectedwarning to provide better information. Guanaco (discuss • contribs) 20:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  While I agree about those hooks (given that the Foundation has foisted that baroque arrangement on us), thus far I still don't think we should delete. If there are disadvantages to use of the templates, warnings can be put on the documentation for them (until such time as fixes might be devised for those problems). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

  Keep the template, add warning documentation, and delete the four pages I listed? Guanaco (discuss • contribs) 01:34, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

  Miscellaneous thoughts.

  • The template message is specifically for when a page has been deleted; the MediaWiki hooks appear unable to tell whether that's so. I'm trying to think of a way to make that distinction in the markup for the hooks.
  • If we were interested in choosing a random book not including pages in Cookbook space, that could be done via Special:RandomInCategory/Subject:Books by subject/all books. I've never been clear on whether or not those Cookbook spaces should be included as choices for Special:RandomRootpage. Random Cookbook pages could be selected via Special:Random/Cookbook.

  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:04, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

• Delete I didn't think about Special:RandomRootpage and Special:Search. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 22:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)