Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:VFU)
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.


Wikimedia Commons logo Add a new entry

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

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

High School Trigonometry, High School Engineering, High School Chemistry, High School Earth Science, High School Life Science, High School Biology, High School Calculus, High School Geometry, High School Probability and Statistics[edit]

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

The Wrestling Universe[edit]

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

Wikibooks:Undergraduate Mathematics/Continuous function[edit]

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

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

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


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

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

Wikijunior:Dinosaur Alphabet[edit]

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

Pragmalinguistic peculiarities of English Slogan in Fashion Domain[edit]

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

What's the status on this? The discussion's quiet and I see a clear consensus to delete. --Fhocutt (WMF) (discusscontribs) 12:32, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Things happen when they happen here. It'll get deleted when an admin has the time and inclination amongst dealing with the spam and vandals. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 13:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd appreciate it if this can be resolved quickly. We have mw:Google Code-in 2015 coming up, and these pages cause confusion for beginners, because they appear high in Google results, seem authoritative because they are 'Wikimedia pages', but they are wrong/misleading/out of date/empty/etc.
If they cant be deleted quickly, how should we tag them so alert the reader of their lack of utility? John Vandenberg (discusscontribs) 22:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
A notice can easily be added at top of every page pointing to an updated resource (not a generic portal) or a portal can be prominently displayed on the cover page indicating that the book is out of date.
I dont agree with the arguments for the deletion, will not support but also not object to it as the content seems to be freely available elsewhere in an updated form. My view is that Mediawiki manuals should be on Wikibooks, the same rational that made us move our images to Commons all the other non-Wikibooks issues are just that, not a Wikibook problem that we need to address. --Panic (discusscontribs) 05:12, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Panic, then I must ask you to look at the content again. It is not a manual. Most of the pages are auto-generated junk. e.g. Pywikibot/ - what do the plus and minus mean in those lists? Some pages like Pywikibot/Basic use could be used in a manual, but however is full of incorrect information about pywikipedia (a dead project) instead of pywikibot, and anyone wanting to seriously write a manual about pywikibot for a real audience would start by using the equivalent pages on MediaWiki, such as mw:Manual:Pywikibot/Basic use. John Vandenberg (discusscontribs) 05:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

...improvement/ help[edit]

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

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

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

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

Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book[edit]

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


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

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

4chan Chronicle[edit]

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

Cookbook:Char Siu[edit]

Not sure if this page qualifies for speedy deletion, so I am requesting it to be deleted here. I've noticed that Cookbook:Char Siu is an exact copy-and-paste of Cookbook:Char Sui (note the switched "u" and "i") and, according to Kgroat's edit summary on Cookbook:Char Siu, was intended to be a move to the correct name for the page. I am requesting it to be deleted to make way for a proper page move from Cookbook:Char Sui to Cookbook:Char Siu. (There is only one revision in Cookbook:Char Siu's page history, not including my addition of the {{rfd}} template.) CabbagePotato (discusscontribs) 06:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

@CabbagePotato: I think this easily qualifies as non-controversial housekeeping. I've changed it to a speedy deletion request on the page. @Kgroat: registered users can rename pages using the move tab at the top of the page. Please use this feature rather than copy-and-pasting because it preserves the edit history. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 16:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)