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
Deletion and Undeletion 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

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:

Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
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.
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

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 MedicineEdit

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

Speedy deleted. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

General Internal Medicine

Page incorrectly created as a book

Done --Xania

^talk 04:19, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Transwiki:Termina,Transwiki:Spectacle Rock,Transwiki:Zelda franchise strategy guide/Locations/Lost Woods,Transwiki:Lost Woods,Transwiki:Gerudo Valley,Transwiki:Subrosia,Transwiki:Lon Lon Ranch,Transwiki:Koholint IslandEdit

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

Speedy deleted. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Was doing my first transwiki imports after a while due to a request for import, and I forgot about the auto redirect feature when moving content to mainspace. Not sure if deletion is needed, but I'd note my mistake here, just in case. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Speedied. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 08:32, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Subpages of English-HanziEdit

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

Closed as delete pages. @Minorax: could you please delete the problematic pages? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Same issue as Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin. Either unsourced/primary research, see creations of Special:Contributions/Efex3. --Minorax^«¦talk¦» 07:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete pages in question for the same reasons as Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin and also Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/English-Hanzi. Phrases shouldn't be hard to verify facts; they are also dubious as far as being pedagogical aids, also likely are copyvios. They have no place in language guides in my opinion. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 08:39, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

My wikibooksEdit

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

Closed as delete. No opposition, and technically these pages could be speedy deleted anyway. Most pictures in the books have already gone, and they would no longer have been updated. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:18, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello -

Please delete my Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine and Geriatric Medicine wikibooks. They have become obsolete. I am updating in a different place. I deleted the text because I was not aware I could request deletion.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powellle (talk • contribs)

Suicide/SuffocationEdit

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

The decision was keep. The reason for this is that deletion votes are either dubiously policy based (the "neutral point of view" argument, which is either untrue or else suggesting a rewrite); or else based on the concept of "objectionable content" which is not a policy-based argument. I would strongly suggest that any further deletion requests should be for the whole book only, I feel we have little to gain from the piecemeal deletion of its pages. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:10, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Reasoning for why "Suicide/Suffocation" should be deleted: The page violates Wikipedia's policy of maintaining a neutral point of view. It advocates for methods of suicide as being "advantageous" due to their success rate. This content is deceptively masked under a false label ("video game strategy guides"). It is irresponsible and dangerous as it reads like a "how-to" manual for desperate individuals contemplating suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.46.214 (talk • contribs)

Delete I'm hesitant to agree. Wikibooks does not seem like the place for such a 'guide'. I don't see what value this brings to the project.--Xania ^talk 00:47, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Keep . Wikibooks is not censored. If you don't like the way it is written, it can be changed to reflect a neutral / factual position. The "delete the suicide book" discussion has come up repeatedly with the same outcome - it's been kept. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that it's been nominated again and again (I remember it being nominated about 15 years ago for the first time) and I'm sure the consensus this time will also be to keep the page but I'd still like to voice my opinion. I'm sure this won't be the last time it's nominated either :) --Xania ^talk 12:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Comment previous discussions at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide, Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide (2), Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Suffocation, and Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Suicide/Toxification/Repackaging drugs in capsules. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 09:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Also see Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2019/December. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Delete What is the point of a book about killing yourself? It's a bit... Wrong. At least to me. _{L10nM4st3r/Roar at me} 10:17, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep I would agree with QuiteUnusual's reasoning. Also the OP references Wikipedia, not Wikibooks, and additionally I see nothing about video games in the linked page. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the OP may be confusing the site banner with a label (which naturally appears at the top of every page). The site banner is about video game guides.--Xania

^talk 11:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Chess_Opening_Theory/1._e4/1...d5/2._exd5/2...Qxd5/3._Nc3/3...e3Edit

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

No comments. Looks like a keep to me. _{L10nM4st3r/Roar at me} 15:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I know sacrificing your queen for a knight is dumb. But this is a chess opening book, and I personally think that with some expansion, (better moves perhaps?) this could be saved. Name Pun (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

comment I know this user was blocked for socking, but I'm gonna assume this discussion is still open. The inconsistency can be fixed to add a chess box at the top of the page, but that is not the reason I used Template:delete. Though Name Pun does have a point, if there were some more good openings, a few bad openings wouldn't be too bad, maybe with a notice saying something like "this is not a recommended opening as it could have a significant negative impact as the game progresses"? I am therefore undecided. _{L10nM4st3r/Roar at me} 06:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

SEWTHA2.0Edit

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

Deleted. License is incompatible. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

The original book this one aims to be based on is released under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike 2.0 UK England & Wales licence according to their page at [1]. The author is quite clear on the same page that they are not OK with others using their book commercially (Albeit specifically referencing the Amazon Marketplace). Unfortunately, as I understand it this licence is incompatible with Wikibooks, which prohibits imports of content not fully compliant with a plain CC-BY-SA 3.0 licence, which includes commercial use. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Transwiki:Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function EquivalentsEdit

Orphan page that is nearly a duplicate of content located at Visual Basic .NET/Visual Basic 6 to .NET Function Equivalents. -MBrickn

Delete per MBrickn (p.s: you forgot to sign.^L10nM4st3r / _{Roar at me} 07:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Sorry I forgot to sign. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 8 August 2022 (UTC)