Wikibooks

Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion)
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks 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

UndeletionEdit

Shortcut:
WB:RFU

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.

DeletionEdit

Shortcut:
WB:RFD

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.


Undergraduate MathematicsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The decision was   Delete . --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The scope of this book is too broad. The Linear Algebra wikibook is a good example of what such a project could be. I came up with the idea yonks ago on undergrad myself and no-one else has taken interest, because I was new to the platform and sketching out ideas.

I'm happy to contribute to other projects, I just don't want people to click this malformed idea instead.

Knittedbees (discuss • contribs) 08:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Question: Knittedbees many of the pages have a rich history, but I noticed on the logs of some that they were imported in May 2014. Is the bulk of the existing content simply imported from English Wikipedia in 2014? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea was to use Wikipedia as a template, but pretty much writing a few books like Analysis, Algebra and Dynamics from scratch focusing on exercises and worked examples would be a better approach (i.e. nothing like the Wikipedia articles I tried importing). (logged out Knittedbees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.57.14 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete it has a lot of content but as explained above they are merely imported articles from Wikipedia in 2014. As such, readers would be better off reading the updated articles on Wikpedia than reading this book. So it makes sense to get rid of it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone with experience in undergrad mathematics, I think the topics in this book are better off as independent wikibooks. Instead, I would favour creating a category of topics that are suitable for undergraduate-level mathematics. P.S: some of the topics are in the wrong category. Stokes' theorem and line integral are in vector calculus, not complex analysis (and there's nothing complex-valued in them, though ideas in line integrals pop up when doing contours and working out complex integrals). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete I agree with Leaderboard about the idea of splitting the topics into independent wikibooks because of the insane amount and number of fields of information crammed into one single book. However, since the basis of the book is an importation from Wikipedia with a good proportion of analysis, I would favor deletion. I have seen books that are relevant to the content mentioned in that book with more analysis and examples. Maybe it would be a great idea to find those books and organize them under a shelf (perhaps there already is one but I was just unaware of it). CalciumTetraoxide (discuss • contribs) 05:35, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NVQ Carpentry Level 2Edit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Kept. The nominator failed to well explain why delete.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this book needs to be deleted as it contains dangerous information which will put lives at risk for all on site, due to the abundance of miss information contained with in the pages. This book also contains some references from publications which are out of date and plagiarised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.106.244 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For perspective, this appears to have started with a comment on the book's talk page by a registered user (who hasn't made any edit on any project afaics), after which an IP6 seconded the criticism and then undid itself, and then the above IP also supported the criticism and also posted here. (I've added a section heading to contain those remarks on the book talk page.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question to 86.182.106.244: can you give any examples of how this book "contains dangerous information" or "miss information" (sic), or is "out of date" or "plagiarised"? Generally books should be fixed rather than discarded if possible. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Vote keep. Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 01:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints "Church Meetings" pageEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The result was merged. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The page The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Church Meetings Has information that could be easily put into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints/Church Service The page should probably be deleted, and the information from the former page moved to the latter, considering that the "Church Meetings" page only has three sentences of information in it. PeanutHat (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge and redirect: I don't think this particularly needs deletion, as this would do the job in as satisfactory manner. If doing this please attribute the merged content from the source page. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be merged with other information on the same subject instead of deleted. User:Abdul_turban — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abdul turban (talk • contribs)

How To Succeed in CollegeEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Was previously speedy deleted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:16, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like the previous post, I started this book thinking I would have the time to work on it. I started this book 7 years ago at a time when I thought I would be able to dedicate a fair amount of time to it. Since then, I have not been able to work on it and do not envision having the time to work on it in the future. As the principal author, I encourage the community to delete the book. --Rcragun (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rcragun: about this and Statistics for Sociology above: if you are the only contributor then WB:SPEEDY applies. Add {{delete|Nominated by the only significant contributor: please delete all pages in book.}} to the main pages. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:40, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Thank you. --Rcragun (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to Convert Videos for the iPodEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
The decision was kept, no consensus for deletion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominate to delete this due to there are many instructional texts at Wikihow projects:

https://www.wikihow.com/Put-Video-on-Your-iPod https://www.wikihow.com/Put-Videos-on-an-iPod-Touch

Proposed by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:34, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose because the existence of something elsewhere is not a valid reason to delete material from our collection. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Merge This could be a good page in the Wikibook Do-It-Yourself, rather then a standalone book with one page. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 10:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Merge icon If I knew there is Wikibookbook like this, I wont nominate it to be deleted. I am also nominating it to be merge +1 to Do-It-Yourself . Voted by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Afiact the Do-It-Yourself book doesn't cover software. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Apologies about that then, I wasn't aware. If that's the case it might be best to leave it be as a historical curiosity. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 08:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

MicronationsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Kept, been open a while and no consensus has been gained for deletion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this book should be deleted, as the book does not serve any purpose. "Micronations" aren't real to begin with, and what I am seeing are users trying to use their own definition of a micronation. It feels like a fantasy book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Many people consider the creation of a micronation as a hobby not necessarily to be taken seriously by others, I believe this book has as much of a purpose as books on woodworking, cooking, painting etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.29.96 (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • "not necessarily to be taken seriously by others" - so therefore, it's not exactly "Educational", is it? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Voting delete due to its vast history of being the center of multiple hoax "micronations" and, imo, fails Wikibooks:How-to textbook guidelines: "These should be educational resources worthy of being called a Wikibook." This doesn't seem educational or useful to me considering that creating a micronation isn't exactly replicable. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • save instead of deleting one of the few good resources for basic research in the field of micronations try considering this book as a useful in theoretical planning of new nations as a hobby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.29.96 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be more useful if it included some factual material rather than ideas dreamt up by the editors. For example, a book on how to build a warp engine from things you find in your garage would not actually be educational despite suggesting that it was useful for someone "theoretically planning" to travel faster than the speed of light. I think the scope of the book needs to be looked at carefully if it is going to be kept. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • This book does include factual information quoted from international law on the creation of new states, so if someone had the will to build a nation and the money to back it up this book would provide useful information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.13.29.96 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I've only skimmed the book so I may be off the mark here. I think if the book examined things such as the relation between micro nations and recognized states it would be of more scholarly use. For example, compare the symbiotic relationship the Conch Republic has with Florida as a tourism attraction with the swift rebuke of Liberland by it's neighbors. Or look at what circumstances causes a micro nation to be founded, like Sealand or the recent attempt to temporarily settle East Sister Island as a sort of COVID-19 isolation state. I think the interplay between recognized nations and micro nations, and the tangible effects they have are quite worthy topics. Meanwhile, current chapters such as Micronations/Starting your own micronation/Extraterrestrial Territory are hard to take seriously. For example, I don't think any nation would declare war on someone for claiming all of space, as such people would most likely be ignored. However if this chapter included serious discussion on what technology, economics, and other requirements needed to create a self sustaining micro nation in space (Basically impossible at the moment, even if you're a billionaire with a private space company, but it's worthwhile naval gazing), as well as the social challenges resulting in successfully claiming empty space that recognized states do not already claim with plausible reactions based on existing treaties and law would be interesting. In short I think there could be a good Wikibook on Micronations, but am unsure if there will be one, if that makes any sense. As a slight tangent, the designing a flag page is pretty decent, if short, and would do well in a Wikibook about Vexillology, if there was one. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that there are pages in the micronations book that are more sci-fi that instructional. If the sci-fi pages were removed and the other chapters rewritten to be more neutral and informational would that make to book more worthy of saving? 68.13.29.96 (discuss) 23:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I'm not saying that those pages would necessarily have to be deleted, especially if they can be made useful. I'm saying that the book would have to be useful in a classroom environment to be kept. In order for a book on Micronations to work on Wikibooks, I think it would have to approach it from a sociological (How Micronations interact with Society), historical (History of Micronations), psychological (Who are the people that found micronations, and do they share common psychological traits), economical (How does a micronation make money), civics (What is the role of a citizen who starts their own nation? What does that mean in the context of their original country?), or political science (How micronations treat other nations and how they are treated by other nations) perspective (Really making it relate to any academic discipline as a goal while writing would be a huge step in the right direction). I hope this explanation helps, though this is really just my personal understanding of things. I'm relatively new to Wikibooks myself so I'd want an more senior user to confirm if this point of view is decent before taking this as a good interpretation of Wikibooks policy. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A phrase found in our documentation is "textbooks, manuals, and other instructional texts". Often we just say "textbooks", but I don't know of a precise definition of that on this sister (though we sometimes consult en.wp's article); it's not clear to me that classroom use is required. Just saying. I myself have contributed a great deal over the years to book Conlang, and hope someday it'll be ready to apply for Featured status, but haven't really thought about how it would play in a classroom. There are quite a few academic courses in conlanging; I believe some linguistics educators find it a deeply thoughtful way of engaging students into their subject. So, while I agree that fiction is rather beyond-the-pale original research, seems to me requiring classroom use may be a bit too conservative. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment Thank you for the clarification! That makes a bit more sense. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment : How about a cleanup instead? I've looked through it a bit, and it generally looks alright; micronations may be made-up entities, but the concept of micronations is not, and there is a wealth of reliable sources that this is the case; e.g. try googling "Principality of Sealand". However looking at the Micronations/Starting your own micronation section is where the difficulties arise, it looks like primary research; or if was actually sourced it seems fantasy oriented. If the book is kept, these "Starting your own micronation" pages could be deleted or redirected, the TOC updated, the rest of the book would probably be OK. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep I agree about cleanup. I've begun working on a section called How Micronations Function which looks at how existing micronations tend to interact with their host nation. It's stubs right now, but I think there's real potential about this topic now that I've thought about it more. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well it could be RfDed, or at least cleaned-up. But I do know that islands are manufactured, Dubai being the obvious example, so it seem reasonable to have a book on island construction. There is some sourcing; but how close the book is to reality is not something I'm sure about. But overall I think its best to have it separate from the Micronations book (if at all). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode/Character reference/EF000-EFFFFEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Result was kept. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:31, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode is not assigned this block, so it is meaningless.--IN (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Noting reserved private use characters as opposed to even if it's a whole block, seems like useful info to me. It's not like the information there is actually incorrect right? If you printed out this table and filled in characters as you used them, I could see it being a useful resource for students working on projects. I need to brush up on how Unicode works though (Only learned about ebcdic and ascii in school.) --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep per Mbrickn, that fact that its unused is important information in its own right. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Economic SophismsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Result was kept, no consensus for deletion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell this is just a straight copy from Wikisource with no further content. It belongs at Wikisource, not here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Tentative oppose. Looks like progress on this has been slow (which from my own experience, sometimes happens with a wikibook) but non-zero. The RFI was in late 2018 —archive— and the requestor then did a bunch of work on it in July 2020. Their most recent edit to it was a typo fix in December 2020. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, you looked closer than I did! It isn't clear to me what the editor intends with both this and Jánua Linguárum Reseráta, neither of which has much going on other than recreating a source text. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete per WB:SOURCE Wikibooks is not a mirror or a text repository. Published texts are only allowed in annotated form. Furthermore its been here for two years and no attempt has been made to annotate it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Set Theory/IntroductionEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Result was kept, no consensus for deletion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone RFD'd this, and I completely agree. The introduction is badly written. As @JeremyBoden: said in the discussion section of the aforementioned page: it is historically incorrect.

  •   Delete Everything in this section does not follow, and I feel a request for deletion is qualified. --Mathmogeek (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Comment @Mathmogeek: do you think anything here could be salvaged? I think personally it might be better to have some sort of introduction page. What could be done is anything inaccurate would be removed, just leaving whatever seems OK. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Keep I've removed that dubious claim about Cantor. Its often better to clean-up then discard. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:47, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham MathematicsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. This isn't even a book to begin with. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I said on the discussion board: Why is this a book? This should not be a book. It would just be a copy of the other courses and material out there on wikibooks and other wikis. I don't think it should be a book.

  •   Delete I do not think this is sufficient enough for it to become a wikibook. Mathmogeek (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Delete , nothing worth keeping, unlikely it will ever be developed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the Bridge CrossingEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Specified pages in book deleted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As I am now cleaning up the Puzzle wikibooks on Puzzles/River Crossing , I came across this pages that needed to be deleted due to the pages are listed as list of puzzles which does not add depth to the puzzle wikibooks (which was causing the book to be nominated for deletion at first place) also this was duplicate of the contents I will be writing later on :

  1. Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing/Solution
  2. Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing
  3. Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge
  4. Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge/Solution
  •   Comment this was proposd by Special:Diff/3567425 on 2 September 2019 by User:Encik Tekateki. I am "bumping" it to see if anyone has any comments, including the proposer after this length of time. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    •   Delete For all intention and purposes, this Puzzle book is focusing on the in depth discussion of the various puzzles and instead of "standard puzzle and solutions" which you can buy off from Amazon. See my created pages of similar topics Puzzles/River Crossing which discuss the origins and derivatives :) . Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On ComedyEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted per consensus. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:16, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Stale book, no meaningful content. Content in subpages are headers w/o any substantial text. --Minorax (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  •   Delete , nothing much there, what is there looks poor, little chance of further development. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:19, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Neutral It's a stub, and there are bits of content in the book, but not sufficiently enough for me to vote keep. I would disagree that it can't be further developed; however, the contribution has not been there for years. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Delete Delete this book Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=3819082#Undeletion"