Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFD)
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

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.

Bannu Pulao edit

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

Minesweeper edit

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

LaTeX/Internationalisation edit

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

City Of Heroes edit

A book that was deleted when strategy guides were not allowed. See discussion -User:Slava Ukraini Heroyam Slava 123 17:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

This book was deleted about 16 years ago and only one page had a significant amount of content. It could all be undeleted but would probably be better re-made from scratch.--Xania     talk 01:34, 11 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Undeleted it with many first-level subpages. Yet City Of Heroes/Archetypes, City Of Heroes/Powers, City Of Heroes/General Help, City Of Heroes/Enhancements, City Of Heroes/Binds and City Of Heroes/Badges have even more subpages to be undeleted.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Undeleted many subpages of the above subpages, less obviously useless versions. Yet any administrators are hereby advised to check Special:Undelete for more to be undeleted.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 21:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Remaking this content from scratch might be difficult - the game shut down in 2012. There's a small community of users running private servers based on leaked source code (!), but far fewer than when the game was active. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 07:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

How to Survive in Minecraft edit

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

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

Listing which works would be much better.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 22:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Open Scholarship Press Curated Volumes edit

This book was recently deleted under the meaningful content policy guidelines, specifically for "Abandoned material with intent and no development after 7 days". I would like to clarify that while development on this Wikibook (and the related Open Scholarship Press books) had been on pause since February, none of the work had been abandoned. Unfortunately, I had not been on Wikibooks to see whether the content had been flagged for deletion until after the content had already been deleted. The deleted book is an integral piece of a wider multi-book project. As such, I would like to request that the book be undeleted so that development may continue. --LodestarChariot2 (discusscontribs) 00:15, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requesting for undeletion of the page "Jumarkese" edit

Hi, I just want to ask the administrators to restore my deleted page, "Jumarkese". I am begging you, I hope you will forgive me. Actually, I just noticed today that you deleted my page. I don't know your reasons why you did that. But I hope you can grant my request to restore my deleted page "Jumarkese" as soon as possible. Thank you. Jumark27 (discusscontribs) 16:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Jumark27. You can see the reasoning under the corresponding section below. It consisted of original research, which is out of scope at Wikibooks, and this type of decision is precedented. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
What do you mean by original research? Jumark27 (discusscontribs) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
See Wikibooks:Original research. Neither Wikibooks nor Wikipedia allow original research.--Xania     talk 07:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

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.


Developing A Universal Religion edit

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

Make it rain wikisource! Wikisource tastes good in pasta. L10nM4st3r / Roar at me 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)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
@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
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
Plain text PDFs are generally out of scope on Commons unless they are source documents, which this is not. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 00:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)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

  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

Waiting for v:Wikiversity:Import#New_requests_for_import to reply.--Jusjih (discusscontribs) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hello, I'm a Wikibooks reviewer and Wikiversity curator. Technically I can handle this request but I decided not to do that for now (v:special:diff/2548035). As I pointed out at v:WV:I, I'm not sure if others have agreed with that suggestion. This is just a curator decision, so other custodians or curators may override my decision, but once there is clear consensus about moving to Wikiversity, then that will make things easier. I hope this can help you. MathXplore (discusscontribs) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)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

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

Dynamical Systems edit

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

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
Hello there,
currently I'm working over at the German page, because I have begun to work with a new, more intuitive terminology. My current plan is to first finish the German version and then possibly to translate it. To finish the German version will take at least until the end of this year. Until then, you shouldn't expect any progress. Afterwards, I may feel inclined to pick up the project, depending on my human rights situation. --Mathmensch (discusscontribs) 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Files from Illustrated Guide to the world of Spira (FFX and FFX-2) edit

Used for decorative, not educational, purposes: File:Float 13.jpg, File:Grabbed Frame 15.jpg, File:Gandof.jpg, File:Ohalland.jpg, File:Braskascan1.jpg, File:Tidus FFX.png (WB:NFCC#8). — Ирука13 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I think I can agree on the removal of these 2005-Fan (discusscontribs) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Chess/Fedida Gambit edit

Created (and added to related pages) by Special:Contributions/Samuel Fedida as original research with no secondary sourcing, not attested in databases. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Radium SmartChain edit

including the closely related books:

These books are a borderline advertisement for a cryptocurrency project. Moreover, the project has changed substantially since the books were written in 2016-2017 - it's now called "Validity", and most, if not all, of the information in these books is no longer accurate. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 06:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Comment I'm not sure it's blatant enough to be considered advertising? Since it technically is a how-to? But, if it is out of date, that could warrant deletion. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hence "borderline". Some of the subpages like Radium Core/Use Cases/Proof of Author have more of a promotional air to them. But yes, the instructional content is all badly out of date; there are edits as far back as 2019 from users trying to mark the books as being outdated, and it's only gotten worse since then. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Delete If it wasn't outdated, I would vote keep, but... ForTheGrammar (discusscontribs) 01:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

ZCash mining GPU Comparison edit

Multiple issues:

First: This is barely even a book. It's mostly a collection of links and statistics.

Second: The content of the book is about a cryptocurrency topic which was rapidly changing when it was written between 2016 and 2018, and which is now considered obsolete, per https://www.zcashcommunity.com/mining/:

Can I mine Zcash with my CPU or GPU?
No. Zcash used to be minable with GPU, but since special hardware (ASIC) was made mining with CPU and GPU is no longer profitable.

The content of the book has been essentially untouched since 2018; given the obsolescence of the technology as mentioned above, it seems unlikely to ever be improved.

Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 06:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have no issues with deleting this book. It doesn't seem like a particularly informative/educational work, and it seems unlikely to be improved. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 21:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
  Delete Would be better served as a blog post than a whole Wikibook. ForTheGrammar (discusscontribs) 00:22, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Parapsychology edit

This page is hopelessly in violation of NPOV. It's actually difficult to see how to salvage it at all. ජපස (discusscontribs) 18:26, 16 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete Agreed. --Xania     talk 03:37, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply
Mostly   Delete as per nomination, 50/50 on the lists of sources, seems like they could be theoretically useful as compilations of primary material for academics wanting to research these groups. But then again, I don't know if that is in scope for the project. YuriNikolai (discusscontribs) 02:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Various pages in Basics of fine-art photography edit

The following pages in Basics of fine-art photography seem out of scope because they consist entirely of personal promotion/advertisement for the author's photography:

Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 04:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, the entire book appears to be a vehicle for the author to promote his own photography. The few sentences of instructional content on pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Creating works in macro photography are practically useless; that one amounts to "to take macro photos, set your camera to macro mode and hold it close to the subject, or read another book for more information". Other pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Interior photography in hobo tours or Basics of fine-art photography/Taking pictures of homeless people provide essentially no information on photography technique at all, and seem to mostly be intended as jumping-off points to showcase more of the author's photos. Omphalographer (discusscontribs) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

History of Grand-Popo edit

Suited for enWP not WB, appears to be a simple import with no likely development. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

HSC Biology edit

  • Almost no meaningful content
  • Abandoned since 2005, unlikely to be developed
  • Scope is not well-developed, hard to imagine other editors being able to contribute

Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Piano Solo Music: An Encyclopedia edit

This book is essentially a compilation of lists and links—I don't think it's actually in-scope here as a book. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

School Projects edit

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

Selected Essays edit

Seems completely out of WB scope; it's just a collection of unrelated personal essays. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Remembering the Templars edit

Seems to be pretty much an encyclopedic article about the Knights Templar, which makes it out of scope; enormous amount of links to enWP and may even just be an import. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Shia Islam/Principles of religion edit

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

Half-Life Computation edit

Doesn't seem in-scope as a book—just seems like a single page on how to do a specific calculation. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mario 64 chromebooks control edit

Just says that the start button is P. The Master of Hedgehogs (discusscontribs) 15:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 16:07, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

God and Religious Toleration edit

This book was previously nominated for deletion in 2011, but kept largely because of its theoretical potential for improvement. It's now over a decade later, and no real improvement has been made. The book has the following issues:

  • A lack of clearly defined educational/instructional scope, structure, or aims overall
  • A lack of structure in each existing chapter
  • Significant NPOV and lack-of-evidence/citations

I've gone through the book to try to improve it somewhat, but it largely feels like a disorganized dumping ground for a variety of abstract thoughts, many of which are heavily biased. At this point, given the amount of time it has had for improvement and the lack thereof, I don't think it has a place at Wikibooks. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 16:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This book is very important in this day and age. Tolerance between religions is important for world peace. Without tolerance, chaos breaks out in the world. We should promote tolerance between religions. If the good guys keep quiet, the bad guys win. Is that what you want? A better way is to simply add a chapter of yours to the book and contribute your suggestions to world peace and the strengthening of love in the world. @Kittycataclysm Nobody60 (discusscontribs) 08:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
Support deleting as per issues pointed out in nom. @Nobody60, there are kilometers between deleting a bad, biased book and supporting religious intolerance or whatever it is you're accusing the nom of doing. Wikibooks is a project with a definite, reachable and concrete goal, which this book doesn't meet, never met and probably would never meet. --YuriNikolai (discusscontribs) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Game guides edit

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

Nazi Germany's Defeat on the Eastern Front, 1941-1945 edit

Abandoned, not much content aside from that on the main page, instructional aims unclear. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 21:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete No real content and perhaps a book with a wider scope would have more success. --Xania     talk 03:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

History of Oregon edit

Abandoned, little meaningful content. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 21:27, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete --Xania     talk 03:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

History of Kosovo edit

Abandoned, very little meaningful content, instructional aims unclear. —Kittycataclysm (discusscontribs) 21:31, 4 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete --Xania     talk 03:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC)Reply