This project page is move-protected.

Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
(Redirected from Wikibooks:VFU)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests Announcements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions Bulletin Board
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

Undeletion[edit source]

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.

Creator's request: misguided effort I do not intend to continue. --JJLiu112 (discusscontribs) 23:39, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

"Internationalisation" is the British spelling for "internationalization". Redirects are cheap, so not sure how this classifies as broken or unnecessary when it can be potentially useful. --SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 09:35, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MarcGarver: Given you deleted this, any thoughts? SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 09:46, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't have redirects, as a rule, that are simply to support different spellings. But I don't really care about this one - so if they want it back, they can have it. MarcGarver (discusscontribs) 09:08, 31 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A book that was deleted when strategy guides were not allowed. See discussion here. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A book that was deleted back when strategy guided for video games were not allowed. You can see the discussion here. -🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦Україні🇺🇦Героям🇺🇦Слава🇺🇦(talk)🇺🇦 17:15, 12 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Couldn't we just mass undelete these books? Garfieldcat1978 (discusscontribs) 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Letting bot archive as needed.Reply[reply]

Deletion[edit source]

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.

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.

General Internal Medicine[edit source]

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

My wikibooks[edit source]

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

Transwiki to Wikisource. This book by User:David Hockey survived VfD in 2005 (Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Developing A Universal Religion) but it should not have. Another VfD is from 2006: Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Purpose, for what was part 3 of the book. The book was originally uploaded as four separate parts, located at Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion.

The book contains multiple inaccurate claims and its title makes it unsuitable for Wikibooks. Material in Wikibooks should strive to be factually accurate and neutral, which this book cannot be. Since this book by David Hockey was previously published, and there is a pdf to check the text against (File:Developing a Universal Religion Parts 1-2-3 & 4.pdf), it can be hosted on Wikisource.

The book presents a philosophy of the purpose of life and ethics, not a religion. The book does not involve God or gods except that it portrays evolution and the life on the Earth as a quasi-god for being alleged potentially omnipotent and by its occasional capitalization of "life" as "Life". It is not true that any philosophy of purpose of life is a religion and the book does nothing to distinguish itself from philosophy as a religion.

The book's key tenet is that we should adopt as a surrogate purpose of life to "support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability". There is nothing factually neutral about this idea; it is one person's philosophical position. And it is not just a minor part of the book that can be edited away; it comes in part 3 and is built upon in part 4. This follows from Developing A Universal Religion/Looking For A Purpose/What Purpose Can We Use?: "Given that there is no detectable purpose pre-designed into life or the universe, then, if we must have one, we must adopt a surrogate. To my mind, the only viable option is to support life’s continual evolution and focus upon helping it to achieve an omnipotent ability. Such a purpose is universal and rational; it is a purpose that will last as long as life itself lasts. It accommodates the whole of life, and shows that we care about more than just our own well-being. It declares that we value life for its own sake and think little about the death that must follow, taking it simply as the price to be paid for living."

The book contains multiple dubious claims about life's omnipotent potential. There is nothing factual about it: not only can life not become omnipotent but it cannot become nearly omnipotent either. To begin with, given our current knowledge, there is no chance life could ever inhabit planet Pluto and the book does not support this idea in any way; and there is no way life can spread from the Earth to the Earth's nearest star given our knowledge. One can find multiple such claims and I will quote just one: "This omnipotent consequence of evolution is just that—a consequence." It is trivial to come up with capabilities that life including humankind may never achieve; one needs just a little bit of imagination. The argument that our ancestors could not have imagined our present capabilities has very little force to support the idea of future near omnipotence. It is obvious but you can read more at Quora: Is evolution omnipotent?.

The book examines some of the ethical consequences of its proposed ultimate purpose, e.g. in Developing A Universal Religion/Determining Moral Behaviours/Killing. Its examination in unconvincing. For instance, it says "The rationale for stating that it would be wrong to kill an individual is easy to state: any individual’s actions may contribute to the objective of supporting Life’s continued evolution, thus each life is valuable and should be preserved", but it is not obvious that each and every human including those severely disabled can contribute to Life's continuing evolution, so it does not follow that each human life should be preserved. Those following the stated purpose could decide to exterminate a technologically weak nation and take its resources and there is nothing obvious in the stated purpose to prevent them from doing so; the author does not seem to realize that.

As for the previous VfD:

  • As for the book being "well written": It may be fairly well written from a stylistic perspective, having been created by a single author outside of Wikibooks and published, but it is not well and plausibly reasoned as shown above.
  • As for "Looks like a real book to me": It surely is a real book, which alone does not make it includable in Wikibooks.
  • As for "There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility." Footnotes and references do not save the book from being non-factual and non-neutral, and the whole of the text is nowhere close to being referenced using Wikipedia's referencing standard. The few references scattered throughout the book do not save the book content from criticism.
  • As for "This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know.": Most philosophical books ever published do not fit Wikibooks since they are not neutral and their factual accuracy can be disputed. Philosophical surveys can be made to fit, though, mostly in the form of "some authors argue that X, other authors argue that Y".

The stated problems with the book cannot be addressed by collaborative editing, starting with the observation that it is not about religion and that it depends on a posited purpose that is not neutral. It should not stay in Wikibooks. Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 07:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Make it rain wikisource! Wikisource tastes good in pasta. L10nM4st3r / Roar at me 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will move it and its subpages via s:Special:Import only one at a time. Please be patient unless someone has any better way.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dan Polansky, L10nM4st3r:Please see s:Wikisource:Administrators'_noticeboard#Mass_import_from_Wikibooks with an objection that the book might not be acceptable there. I am not exporting yet.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 19:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete, but if the PDF is under a compatible licence, which I presume it should be if the import was done correctly, consider moving the original PDF to Wikimedia Commons? Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 01:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since Wikisource does not want the book due to being self-published (which it does seem to be), I am happy to keep it in Wikibooks. However, the book should probably start with a heavy disclaimer to the effect that the book contains original research, may be inaccurate or may reflect the point of view of a particular philosopher not accepted by mainstream philosophy. As incorrect as it seems to be, the book seems interesting enough. The book could be assigned in a philosophy course: "Read Developing A Universal Religion from Wikibooks a identify defects in its arguments"; or the like; a professional educator would probably be able to create a better formulation for an assignment, including perhaps "determine the kind of -isms the book falls under" or "identify authors developing similar themes" (which is more challenging since one needs to know the literature). The book is not much worse than a lot of bad material that passes as "philosophy" is some countries. --Dan Polansky (discusscontribs) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete This seems to be very much outside the scope of Wikibooks per "Wikibooks is an instructional resource". Also seems to contain a lot of original research. If its to be transwiki-ed, then Wikiversity seems a better project for it. Thenub314 (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

It is outdated and no longer updated, documentation is now kept in the git repo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeroenr (talkcontribs) 23:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Multiple pages in Popular Music[edit source]

Hello! I believe that many pages in the book Popular Music unambiguously do not meet the Wikibooks criteria for inclusion due to being overly encyclopedic. These include:

The content of these pages all seems more suitable for Wikipedia and unsuitable for here, per Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia. I noted on the book's discussion page how I feel the book could be improved to be more suitable for Wikibooks. If the pages can be reworked, or if the information contained therein can be integrated somewhere more appropriate, they would not necessarily need to be deleted outright!

@Inner Focus I'm pinging you since you've contributed to several of these pages. I'd love to hear your thoughts as well. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 01:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Delete unless Inner Focus chooses to move these to their userspace (it will still be out-of-scope, but at least we're not throwing their efforts in the bin). I can't see how these specific songs can ever be integrated with Wikibooks' other existing books, but I'll leave that to those who work more on content than I do. --SHB2000 (discusscontribs) 08:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I vaguely remember this rule being interpreted differently in the past, but despite this I can't find anything to back that up.
This might also affect the following Wikibooks:
Mbrickn (discusscontribs) 23:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think The Unicyclopedia wouldn't be affected because even though it self describes as an encyclopedia, it still feels more like a guidebook with a specific focus on unicycling. If it consisted solely of pages that each described in excess detail a component of a unicycle (analogous to the Popular Music pages I mentioned), that might be less appropriate. As it stands, though, The Unicyclopedia seems reasonably structured, with a clear aim and interdependency between pages. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 22:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inner Focus It seems that consensus is that it should be deleted—you may want to move it elsewhere where it would be more suitable. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 17:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have trimmed such articles, leaving only an infobox of the song, music video information, and the view count milestone tables. Sorry, I don't know how to make an infobox for music and songs, and unfortunately, Wikibooks didn't have one. I created one a few minutes ago, but it appears not to be working properly. This is why I am using a table instead to give the basic info of a song. Inner Focus (discusscontribs) 15:38, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inner Focus thank you for your effort in trimming them, but I unfortunately still believe that the pages as they stand are overly encyclopedic in nature. Could you clarify the intended scope of the pages and how you believe they fit into the book as a whole? I've made some proposals regarding the scope/structure of the book as a whole. Thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 19:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular Music/More X vs Less not X[edit source]

This page appears to have nothing to do with the book Popular Music. Unless it has a home somewhere else on wikibooks, it seems to me like it should be deleted (or at least removed from Popular Music. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 22:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consists of excerpts from third parties. Those from New Scientist, do not appear to be under a compatible licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrickn (talkcontribs) 07:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure it's enough of a violation for deletion? Based on a copyvio comparison, the text seems mostly paraphrased. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 19:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

This seems to be abandoned book, the only content is largly vacuous. I don't believe it is likely to be extended or worked on because it is both a technical topic, and represents to original author's goals for such a book (graduate level vs undergraduate). Thenub314 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It does seem abandoned; the single existing page hasn't been updated since 2018 and the main book page hasn't been updated since 2019. Unless someone quickly decides to pick up on it, I can't really see it staying here at Wikibooks :/ —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this game real or not? Garfieldcat1978 (discusscontribs) 19:24, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I based it on Gay_Gordons_ on Wikipedia, which is sourced. Champion (discusscontribs) 09:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]