Wikibooks:Requests for 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.

Investiture of the Gods

See Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Investiture of the Gods for the original deletion discussion; some extra discussion here at Wikibooks is at User talk:Darin Fidika~enwikibooks#Investiture of the Gods. This is a kind of reading guide or explanatory commentary for English-language speakers on the Fengshen Yanyi, a notable historical work of Chinese literature which features extensive references to Chinese folk religion and mythology; it is now being discussed at the Wikisource sister project: see wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Portal:Investiture of the Gods and the subsequent discussion here at Wikibooks:Reading room/General#A discussion about Investiture of the Gods.

Overall, it seems clear enough that the merit of keeping this work at Wikibooks was never even discussed or assessed in the first place; an overbroad claim was simply initially presented that it wholly consists of a translation of Fengshen Yanyi ... with no annotations to make it an annotated text for suitable inclusion, which went unchallenged as the work was straightforwardly transwikied to Wikisource, but this is shown to be incorrect: rather, it contains extensive chapter summaries and an explanatory "Categorization of Events" for each chapter, and is not, by all evidence, a verbatim translation of the original Chinese work (if it was such, it could simply be hosted on English Wikisource, which allows for such translations).

ISTM that Wikibooks is the most suitable Wikimedia project for hosting this particular content of clear educational value, given its existing policies on hosting both instructional texts in general and "annotated" works specifically. (For example, Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?#What is Wikibooks explicitly allows for "extensive book summaries" when they're about a historically notable work of literature. The in-context example is Shakespeare, but considering a work of Chinese literature such as the Fengshen Yanyi instead only strengthens the case for inclusion.) --~2025-27371-40 (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Noting here for transparency that this was requested on Wikibooks:Requests for import#Import request: Investiture of the Gods, but instead of being imported here, it was imported to Wikiversity by Koavf. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 04:18, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Character Encodings

• I didn't see the deletion discussion, as the latest author of this wikibook. I want to know what work could be done to fix this, if it was restored. I see that it needs content outside of code tables for it to be valid- if restored, I will add pages for MS-DOS, HP, and EBCDIC. What else needs to be done? If restoring is impossible, I at least want to view it.Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

• • Maybe this can be merged into Introduction to Computer Information Systems or something similar. Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 21:44, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

    Hi, Alexlatham96. I closed a recent deletion discussion about the book, because: Was never fleshed out into a proper book and consists only of code tables. I'll ping @Kittycataclysm here if they have a second opinion, and because they created the discussion (that never had any participation). There were hundreds of pages in this book that will take some time to restore. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

    Chiming in here to elaborate on my reasoning! Per WB:WIW, as a general rule, only instructional books are suitable for inclusion. Non-fictional books (as well as fictional ones) that aren't instructional aren't allowed on Wikibooks. Examples of nonfictional books that aren't instructional/allowed include reference works like dictionaries, which are only really allowed as part of larger instructional books and not on their own. Based on the contents I saw here, the content was solely reference materials and not instructional materials. I see no problem with consolidating and migrating the content to something like a useful appendix as part of another book. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    Note that these pages were created as transwiki back in late 2024 from Wikipedia (and they were deleted afterwards), and since these were deleted now from WikiBooks, they're no longer visible (also, they're still deleted from Wikipedia). However, "Wayback Machine" seems to have a copy of it, but it may not be complete.

    If a restoration here isn't possible, what should be done instead?

    ~2026-15548-70 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    This was actually created in an earlier transwiki from Wikipedia (there were two)- the first being in July 2020. I support the proposal to make it an appendix to Introduction to Computer Information Systems or something similar.Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    @Alexlatham96: which pages would you want to be undeleted? I can help. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 11 March 2026 (UTC)

    Let's start with the MS-DOS (code page numbers 3846 and lower) and HP code tables section, because these were the most recently transwikied (people will be especially looking for code pages 775, 852, 855, 857, and 860). Once this is done, we can do the EBCDIC code tables, which were also transwikied (and I finished adding what was planned for Wikipedia).Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 00:17, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

    I've undeleted all HP code table sections, and to clarify, do you want ALL MS-DOS sections lower than 3846 (including undeleting those in the 100-700 range) to be undeleted? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:31, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

    Yes, including 3846. Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

    All done. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

    Great. Let me know when you have time to undelete the EBCDIC section- people will be looking for code pages 37, 500, 875, and 1026 especially.Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 22:10, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

    Update: also the two in the ISO section- these are standards.Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 06:29, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

    • Thank you. I also see that the old administrator is inactive, and never found out about this. There will may have to be a new administrator other than me, since I am not one on Wikipedia or Wikibooks. Does another user with knowledge of the topic like Drmccreedy or HarJIT have admin powers?Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 03:34, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
    • Update: I found out they do not have admin rights, but can still do non-admin tasks. The authors of Unicode's legacy encoding proposals (latest being L2-26/077) could also help out if they're active here.Alexlatham96 (discuss • contribs) 03:55, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

Markdown

The page Markdown was short but pretty sweet. It showed Markdown features by example and contained decent external links. He who would want to expand the page had the option. I find the page to be a minimum useful product/artifact, to be ideally restored. For reference, the page in Wayback Machine. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Kittycataclysm who marked the page for speedy deletion. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 19:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste thank you! I think for me this relates to recent on-wiki discussions we've been having in the sense that I don't think it makes sense to host any content that could theoretically be improved by someone at some time in the future. Even if the content is valid (which it seems to be!), the work is not set up to be book-like, I don't think it's in scope here, and I can't see someone coming around and turning it into a book within a reasonable time frame. Does this help? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to Dan Polansky. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: The content is not book-like, but I do not recall this having been a requirement in Wikibooks (despite the name). If there is a requirement that the content should be book-like, it should be made into a policy. I created other pages that were instructional with no chance of being book-like in the past. Some examples of non-book-like pages include less, grep and sed.

The content is minimum useful artifact for the head and is instructional.

Either way, can you please at least restore the content in my user space? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:15, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky language in policy does refer to Wikibooks content as book-like. For example, per WB:WIW:

• "The site should primarily be used for developing textbooks, textbook-like books, and supporting book-based instructional materials"
• "As a general rule, only instructional books are suitable for inclusion"
• "Wikibooks includes both minor and major book-like projects"

For other admins: if I am missing something obvious, please let me know. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: Thank you. I note: 1) it says "primarily", which means "not exclusively"; 2) "instructional materials" is much broader than books.

Moreover, I checked 2021 version of the policy and did not find the text you are quoting. When was the text introduced, by what process and who approved the text? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:25, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Part of the answer lies in this edit of yours from 9 March 2024, which does not trace to a discussion or a vote, but traces to Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines. However, Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines is not marked as a policy.

Be it as it may, it does not answer my question: where is the evidence of consensus for the changes, minimally in the form of a discussion, and ideally in the form of a request for comments or a vote?

Let me also ask from the point of view of examining other examples that I already brought up: is it your view that less, sed and grep should be deleted as non-books, too short to be considered books?

Let me also ask about the process: why was RFD not used and instead speedy was used? From what I recall, Wikibooks used to delete subpar content via RFD, including all those outlines with no content proper. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:41, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky

1. That's a good catch about the March 9 edit—I can't recall why I made that decision, but I think you're right that moving text from a non-policy page to a policy page without discussion is not appropriate. My understanding is that the general sentiment is still correct, but we'll need more community discussion to officially integrate it into policy.
2. Regarding the other examples you listed: assuming the book-like requirement is the community consensus, I don't think they can stand on their own, but it might be possible to turn them into a more cohesive book.
3. Regarding the process, I flagged for speedy deletion because I was on the fence about whether it was a speedy or an RFD—in these cases, I usually flag for another admin to review instead of making the deletion myself.

Since this is getting more into community consensus territory, I am looping in other active users and admins to weigh in @Atcovi @Leaderboard @Xania @MarcGarver @SHB2000 @Omphalographer @JJPMaster. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:04, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: Thank you for this response. And let me also thank you for your clean-up effort at Wikibooks; hardly anyone wants to do that and you seem to be doing quite a lot of it. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Wikibooks has never been heavy on written policies and tends to operate in line with what the current active community thinks is right. This isn't unusual, many small projects work like that. So getting hung up on who edited a policy and whether it was approved isn't really important - there have been many proposals put forward to amend WIW, and you need to search to find them as they are buried in different talk pages and project pages - what's important is what the community wants to do now. For what it is worth it is pretty clear from its very inception that the intention of Wikibooks was to host textbooks (see m:Talk:Science_Hypertextbook_project). That doesn't preclude the community from changing its mind, now or in the future. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

1) This use of the word "community" (instead of e.g. "editors") is a huge red flag. 2) The above attitude allows for a manipulation of the project, especially by people who are more interested in exercising their power than contributing any useful content. If there really is a consensus of the "current active community" (whatever that is supposed to mean), that current community should not have any difficulty passing it through a request for comment or a vote. From my experience, projects that disregard policies start to get controlled by bad actors, often actors who do not have the skill to do any content work so they natually tend toward mere administrators (also known by Steve Jobs as bozos). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:06, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

My thoughts are mostly with Marc's and Leaderboard's here. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 22:57, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

+1 —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:32, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I think the book does not qualify in its current state (but as a draft, wouldn't have qualified for deletion either). Markdown is indeed a language without a lot to write; however, I think the book is too small as written. The fact that it's only a single page is fine. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

But why does it not qualify, given it shows the most important features of Markup by example? (It is not a book and probably never will be. It is too short for that and will be too short, even if expanded.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

It's too brief in my opinion. A Wikibook tends to have significantly more detail, even if it's just one page. I think the book can absolutely be expanded in a form that will allow it to stay here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Brief for what purpose or objective? As a user of Markdown, I want to know the answer to the following questions: 1) What is the core syntax of Markdown (so that I can use it productively)? 2) What are some of the best external sources about Markdown? I provided an answer to both questions. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:21, 23 May 2026 (UTC)