Open main menu
Wikibooks

Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

(Redirected from Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion)
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions
This project page is move-protected.

Contents

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.

Language ArtsEdit

Its a valid topic, perhaps it can be userfied, wish to work on it further. -Inowen (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Done I've moved it to User:Inowen/Language Arts, so you can take your time to develop it before reindexing with the books. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography of Henry HoenigswaldEdit

I fail to understand why this was deleted. JackPotte objects to it being an encylopedia entry, but a bibliography and an encyclopedia entry are not the same thing. There are other bibliographies on Wikibooks (I am reluctant to draw attention to them for fear that our deletion happy Jack will have a field day). I have read the deletion policy and see no obvious reason why this book falls under any of its stipulations. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tibetologist, JackPotte: This seems to me like an in-between case. A large bibliography does seem like a plausible book for this project; on the other hand, a small bibliography is the sort of thing that would be attached to an encyclopedia article, and is not a book in much the same way that most small things aren't books; a book is made up of a bunch of smaller modules that are arranged as a whole.

One view of the role of Wikibooks in the wikimedian sisterhood is that it provides a place for topic coverage that's too in-depth for Wikipedia, especially if it's too in-depth in a coordinated way. This looks rather marginal, of small-to-medium-ish size with relatively little internal structure (mostly just a chronological list). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero, JackPotte: The reason I moved this to Wikibooks is because the bibliography was deemed too long to host at the bottom of the Wikipedia page for Hoenigswald. So, my thinking was exactly, if it is inappropriate for an encylopedia article that how about a Wikibook. For context, there are Wikipedia pages with bibliographies this size, but also there are a number of bibliographies that are Wikibooks. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero, JackPotte: So, does the dying down of discussion here mean there is a consensus to restore the article? --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
  Done undeletion. To delete again, please open a new discussion.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Spanish GrammarEdit

Hello. I'm requesting that a book I created, Spanish Grammar, be undeleted. There is a subsection on the main Spanish language learning book about grammar, but the topic of Spanish grammar is large enough that it warrants its own book. There is a book entitled English Grammar, for example. The current Spanish Wikibook is 96 pages in its PDF. A book about Spanish grammar would, and should, easily excede that. Caitlinschultz (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't see why this would be deleted. We don't prohibit multiple books on a single subject, let alone multiple books on different-though-related subjects. I'd be inclined to undelete, but would prefer to hear some remark from the deleting admin so we stay far, far away from any risk of a wheel war. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, multiple books on a single subject aren't prohibited, but as it stands, this book is of no useful value. I think it's better to move it to their userpage/sandbox and let the content develop from there. Afterwards it can easily be moved back to mainspace. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I find it disappointing that this user did not engage with me in a discussion at my talk page, but rather started a discussion here without first answering my question on my talk page. I, personally, am not a fan of several separate books relating to the same topic scattered all over the place (a problem that has some significance at the English Wikiversity). I don't have any strong opinion on this matter, but as I've seen that an English Grammar book (and English in Use: multiple books relating to the same topic) and no prohibition relating to the "matter of multiple books on a single subject" stands: I wouldn't hold any disagreements with this book being undeleted with consensus (as standard of any WB:RFD discussion). —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I hope you won't be too upset with me for saying this, Atcovi, but to me it sure looked like your talk page comment was sort of cutting off debate... seemed to have a sort of air of finality about it. Chazz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
You're actually right. My memory has failed me. Infact, the question was in my edit summary. I apologize for this wronging of mines. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
I have to agree with Pi Zero on this one; Spanish grammar can be convoluted enough that it merits its own book, and is far too involved for a general book on Spanish in any case. Which of course puts me into opposition with Leaderboard; but I have to say that I'm not happy with the recent trend of sequestering nascent books in user space. Every book has to start somewhere, and isn't it better for a book, in its early days, to be out in mainspace where other authors and editors can have some input? Chazz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
@Chazz: The bar can be set low. If there is even a few pages of useful value, then we can move it back. It's just a small guard against cases wherein some users plan something but never complete it (but arguably the query template is better suited for it). I don't mind restoring it provided the query template is set so that we can determine whether it is likely to be developed or not. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
We're an open wiki. Anyone can start a book. Discouraging people from contributing is lethal to a wiki and we should not entertain such a thing for a moment. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Restored per Pi zero's finishing comment and some more pondering on this. Apologies if any of this discourages you @OP. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks everybody for the input on this discussion, and thanks for the restoration Atcovi. I'll get to working on the book. Cheers Caitlinschultz (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

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.


Wikijunior:How_Things_Work/BinaryEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Merged. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:49, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


Wikijunior:How_Things_Work/Binary is a duplicate of Wikijunior:How_Things_Work/Binary_Numbers. The second of those two articles is better developed and has much more content. GKFXtalk 14:11, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Merge.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Merge JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
    • There's not very much content in the deletion candidate that doesn't exist in some form in Binary Numbers, so while a merge is obviously the correct policy thing to do, in practice there won't be very much merging to do. GKFXtalk 08:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
  •   Merge. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 19:08, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

If nobody opposes this, I will mark this RfD   Merge in 7 days. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 22:33, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@PokestarFan: Don't, please. You've been asked not to close RFDs. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  Merge. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 02:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Windows Command Prompt CommandsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Delete per consensus and user request. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:27, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Could be possibly speedy. 1) It is redundant to Windows Batch Scripting; 2) contains copyvio by pasting output of Windows cmd.exe command helps, e.g. in Windows Command Prompt Commands/mkdir; you have to click on "[Expand]" in the page to see the content. Please don't merge anything into Windows Batch Scripting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

  1.   Delete Even if this text is spread over the Internet, its original copyright is not compatible with ours. Moreover its original author had announced that he won't finish the book, so there won't be any relevant content in the medium term. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 18:15, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm self-nominating the book an will probably never finish it. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 23:18, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
  1.   Delete per JackPotte.BukhariSaeed (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

World History/Effects of the First World WarEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Purged. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

I just found it a likely copyvio, maybe except the first two versions, thus requesting deleting most versions, not all of them.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 05:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

It had been copied by EikwaR, so I've just restored the older version before hidding the others. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

User:GjoniikarrricaEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted - speedy would've been fine. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 02:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

This userpage appears to be a copy of an article (Gjon Karrica), which was deleted five times on English Wikipedia in 2015. The user has made no other visible edits to Wikibooks. I think it is outside the project scope per WB:HOST and WB:SOAP. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Start an Internet BusinessEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:35, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


This "book-stub" has been around for several years, originally in a copyvio form, but now with just a discouraging message. I appreciate that any business (let alone an internet business) will be tough but is that really in line with the Wikibooks purpose? We have several business-related books at various stages of development but this is one that we could do without (unless someone wants to make a go of it or merge it somewhere). Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

  1.   Delete as nominator. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Delete It has never been a book. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment The topic itself isn't out of place, imo. There doesn't appear to be significant content there to justify calling it a "book", though, nor a framework for a book. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment This almost reads like a leaflet. It could be expanded but I doubt there will be enough to fill the "sense" of a book. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, there's no sense of incipient book-ness about it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete In addition to/support of the above: it uses first person singular pronouns, seems to plug a couple of commercial sites, and is signed with "I hope this article is informative and very helpful to you." --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete then delete. It is like a leaflet or brochure. Types of things are common on the internet. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Guides and manualsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


I’ve been looking at this category for a few days now but I cannot see where it fits. The text on the page talks about "How to" guides as an example but it seems to me that if someone is searching for a how-to, they will probably search for the subject more than this category. There appear to be numerous books that could theoretically be categorised here but I imagine the need to create subcategories will arise. I don’t see this category as being necessary for organising books, but I might be wrong. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 10:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

  1.   Delete as nominator. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 10:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Delete Doesn't fit to our classification Category:Subject:Books by subject, and the Universal Decimal Classification would be more appropriate if we needed one more. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
  1.   Delete not fit. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 20:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Love Intimacy and RomanceEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 25 February 2018 (UTC)


Hello,

I uploaded this document by mistake, I want to delete this page and want to unpublish my book from Wikibooks.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irene Pearson (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 1 February 2018‎

There isn't any Love Intimacy and Romance book here. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 09:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Irene Pearson: It looks as if you did upload a cover image to Commons (which is one of our sister projects), with a back-cover-type description of the book. That image is here, and you could request its deletion by editing that page (follow the link) to add the following markup (I think):
{{delete|request by uploader}}
--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero:, its {{speedy|request by uploader}} for a immediate. the "delete" is for a deletion discussion for community discussion. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
@Itene Pearson:   Done on Commons. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 18:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Open_and_Distance_Education/Course_Design/OverviewEdit

It is an orphan. I decided to put the content on the parent page "Course_Design".

@Rjbfigueroa:   Done . Next time you can add a {{speedy}} tag. See Wikibooks:Deletion policy. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Python Programming/pyFormexEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Keep . The external link works, so the reason to delete it does not exist now.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:33, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

The website for the module is down, and so the page is not needed. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 00:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  1.   Delete Empty page. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  2.   Delete virtually empty page, aside from 1 sentence. Artix Kreiger (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
  3.   Comment A Google search shows the website for the library has moved to http://www.nongnu.org/pyformex/ , so that issue doesn't justify deletion. It might be that that specific library is too niche a topic for the scope of the book, but in any case I feel like this isn't the right place for that discussion (as opposed to the talk pages of the book), at least at first. -- Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  4.   Keep The website http://www.nongnu.org/pyformex/ is not down; and pyformex is on pypi[1]. The page is a stub, but let us keep it until someone decides to expand on it. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
  5.   Keep The website works. While it is a clear stub, it can be developed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Merging multiple pages of Python ProgrammingEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Keep . This request is a bit stale now, and all are in favour of keeping the pages.Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 06:54, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

I have merged these to Python Programming/3rd-party modules. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

  Keep There are at least two problems:
  1. You didn't add everything into Python Programming/3rd-party modules (eg: "import MySQLdb").
  2. The topic of Python Programming/3rd-party modules seems to large to me, and its content must be too long to avoid scrolling a lot when searching a needle in the haystack on a slow page. Moreover, this lack of precision is undesirable to create the links to the sister project (eg: w:numpy, w:PyQt), which could bring us more visitors.
JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 09:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Page merges inside a project only require community consensus if you seek reassurances regarding your actions, consensus should be gathered among the project's editors and a merge tag is not necessary, you do the job yourself unposed or express your "merge" concept on the project's talk page.
I move that this talk stream should indeed be move to the project's talk page and no merge tag be used on individual project pages (this is not Wikipedia).
PS: Page merges are distinct from deletions (like the one above on the same book space (deletions merit a discussion if content or structure is lost, as we do not outright delete stubs and proposed for deletion content may be of use elsewhere)). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep Per JackPotte and Panic. There would be no real gain out of such a merge; it would result in a potentially overlong page that merely agglutinates disjoint topics. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 23:31, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
  Keep obviously. If the Python Programming book team (which is basically me) decided to introduce a nested chapter structure, they would do it by renaming, not by copying and deleting. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Programming for Palm OSEdit

Programming for Palm OS/SuperWabaEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Keep --Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This page has been a stub since it was created 12 years ago. PalmOS no longer exists and SuperWaba no longer supports PalmOS, so I'm inclined to conclude that this page is never going to be expanded into anything useful.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:204:c900:919b:489f:5442:6216:25e8 (talk • contribs)

Nominated the entire book. PokestarFan • Talk • Contributions 18:45, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Deleting old GCSE BooksEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Discussion on this is complete. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Most of the GCSE books seem to have been completely abandoned (with the last true edit being a decade ago). Furthermore, the specifications have changed, meaning that course materials are now radically different. - Neutrinopenguin 01/04/2018

It's not obvious because we're talking about more than 200 pages: Category:Subject:General_Certificate_of_Secondary_Education. So they could have an interest, at least historically. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 08:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Since I am planning on writing new guides for them, would it be perhaps acceptable if I mentioned they are uncompleted and unfinished as well as linked from there to the new guides then?

Neutrinopenguin 10:58, 1 April 2018 (GMT)

Sure. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Buyer's Guide For Building a ComputerEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Consensus to delete. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I propose that this book be deleted because

  1. Content is old and outdated
  2. The little content already inside has been already incorporated into the far better How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC/Choosing_the_parts page.

There were already suggestions to incorporate its text into the book mentioned above, but in reality, it's already done.
The book mentions that it's meant to supplement the Featured book How_To_Assemble_A_Desktop_PC, but instead it's an old duplicate of a page in the book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:32, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Delete per the nominator. I reviewed the other page listed here and it seems to be way more developed. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  Delete per nominator. Chazz (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  Delete per nominator. We don't want to have a lot of extra or duplicate pages that make our content harder to maintain. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Case_Studies_in_Sport_Event_ManagementEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
It's short, but the community is overwhelmingly in favour of   Delete . Don't see the point of keeping it any longer. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I propose deletion for this because it was a book that never was a book. It was started in 2010 and contains and still contains only the skeleton of a book. It was never improved on, added to or made to be anything resembling a book. Delete for now and later on if someone else decides to create such a book, a space will be available for it. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 21:25, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

  Delete Empty for years. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:31, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
  Delete The only substance there is the proposed chapter structure, which is potentially useful — indeed, such guidance can play a key role in making a book successful, or unsuccessful — but there's no empirical evidence that this is guidance of the successful, rather than unsuccessful, sort since not a single chapter has been written. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
Since not a single chapter has been written @Pi zero:, why don't we save the community time and just delete this per WB:NMC: "Pages with no meaningful content. Always check and revert if good content in the revision history was replaced"? If we look into the definition of what a "no meaningful content" verdict really suits, it seems to suit one of the following: "Spam and vandalism, test edits and nonsense, or abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content." I believe this book perfectly fits "abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content"... so I say we close this RfD and speedy delete this book. Agreed? --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 21:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
I think there's enough there to warrant thought, which is what we're giving it here. WB:NMC does say, when in doubt, discuss. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
Very well then. I will make sure to keep tabs up on this discussion in the mean time. Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:08, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  Delete No meaningful content, and full of references to 2010. Clearly abandoned. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Auxiliares_de_Conversación,_Language_and_Culture_Assistants_in_Spain_Survival_Guide/LivingEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. This page is clearly abandoned, there is no need for it to stay, and hence I do not foresee any reasonable opposition for its deletion. I should also note that this page is orphaned; one cannot access this page from the main book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as nom. This is a skeleton of book that's been around since May 2009. NO attempts have been made to enlarge or improve this book at all. Delete with no prejudice to recreating by anyone. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 16:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Ethnography_of_Fiddle/Noise_KhanyileEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Keep as developed.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. This isn't a book. This is an add for a non-notable musician or music group. This is Wikibooks, this material isn't accceptable for Wikibooks. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 17:12, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  Keep . This looks reasonably developed that it shouldn't be deleted. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Diablo_Canyon_Nuclear_Power_Plant:_The_WikiBook/NRC_Finishes_Safety_ReportEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. This would have qualified under WB:SPEEDY. Clearly abandoned and the link is under a paywall anyway. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. This consists soley of a link to a copyrighted report. This fails TOS. I recommend immediate deletion of this page. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 17:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Diablo_Canyon_Nuclear_Power_Plant:_The_WikiBook/NRC_Responds_to_PressureEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted. As above, would have qualified under WB:SPEEDY. The article is clearly abandoned and I do not foresee any reasonable opposition to its deletion. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. Exactly the same rationale as above. This consists soley of a link to a copyrighted report. This fails TOS. I recommend immediate deletion of this page. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 17:49, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Chemical_Principles/Atoms,_Molecules,_and_IonsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Deleted. That is, the whole Chemical Principles book. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete as nominator. This book is a word-for-word copyright of | this source , and their usage policy, available on the same page, at the bottom, is not compatible with ours. Specifically the Introduction in the wikibook is a word-for-word copy of the top portion of | this page. The next portion, in Wikibooks, while not a word-for-word copy, is close enough to be a copy of the remainer of the text.

    This has been | tagged as a copyright violation by User:DMacks since June 11, 2018, with no changes made to the text. I think it's time to delete this now. Necromonger Wekeepwhatwekill 20:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

  Delete The level of copy-paste is serious enough. I'll wait a day or so for comments and then delete it. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Noting here for more permanent record that the content was added by User:Elo 1219. Looking at that editor's other contributions, I find that Chemical Principles/Electronic Structure and Atomic Properties is also copyvio from a different PDF (chapter 9) at that same source. DMacks (discuss • contribs) 21:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
The whole book (or major parts thereof) may have to go. Can someone list out all the chapters which are potentially copyvio? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
I spot-checked a few more chapters and they are all copyvio (same chapter-numbers as the PDFs). The "preface" item on our book even includes the welcome message signed by the authors of that website's e-book. (please ping me if you want further input here so that I get notified on my home wiki). DMacks (discuss • contribs) 01:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
You don't need to wait to delete a copyvio - or request it here. Tag it with {{copyvio}} or {{delete}} and it can be speedy deleted. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:18, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I have deleted the whole book except the cover and tagged that so people know what's happened. The cover includes the same statement as the source "You are granted permission for individual, educational, research and non-commercial reproduction, distribution, display and performance of this work in any format." which is incompatible with Wikibooks CC-BY-SA. There is a further note that permission was granted for use here, but no evidence of that exists. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

A Guide To BostonEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Deleted per votes of delete below. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:28, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Not a textbook. At best, it's a guide to a place, which is more suited for Wikivoyage. I propose that this book be deleted. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

  Comment I'd have no problem with porting to Wikivoyage if Wikivoyage is interested, and with the assent of the primary author — I don't see a note about this on their user talk page. I don't recall anything that says we can't host an educational book that happens to be about a place, though most of them did get ported to Wikivoyage once it started up. It is on the light side atm, but that isn't necessarily a permanent state. Before deciding what ought to be done I'd like to hear from one or both of a Wikivoyage inside-expert (is that a Wikivoyager? not sure what their local culture prefers) and the primary author. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  Transwiki because it's a single small page for seven years, and otherwise it would be binned. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Taking a look at Boston, it seems like that page is developed enough that I'm not sure as to what can be transwikified from Wikibooks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  Delete Per Leaderboard, the wikivoyage article is miles ahead of this and there is no way wikivoyage could accept such an article. The only way is to manually merge some information (if there is any, but I doubt so) into the main article where the faster way is just to do without transwiki, as it's just a few commons pictures.Speaking with some minor experience as a Chinese Wikivoyage Transwiki Importer --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
  Comment As a Wikivoyage admin, I don't think Wikivoyage will take much interest in this article, since it doesn't have a lot of content, really just a list and some pictures. However, probably ButteBag, who's considered to be the expert on Wikivoyage's Boston article, would have the best idea of any possible merge. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 06:37, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  Comment Yeah, it seems like we've already got this info covered at WV. Also the image of the Pru here is actually the tower at the Christian Science Center. The Hancock tower is also the wrong image (of the Hancock in Chicago). I had a good chuckle! Thanks! --ButteBag (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
  Delete Per ButteBag's above comment. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

'Spambot' pagesEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Deleted. I'll delete on sight any such spambot-like pages in the future. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed quite a few pages recently which have all the markings of a classic spam page, except that they lack a link and hence the abuse filter does not catch them.

I honestly want to delete them, but the sticking point is WB:AGF; I can't prove that they are a spambot with the generic information on the userpage, even though they seem like one.

What do you think?

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Delete - Either oddballs or spam. All very odd and not contributing to the project. I know we have our policies but I would just gp ahead and delete them. It's not a biog deal - if the worst happens then they can be quickly undeleted. --ЗAНИA  talk 13:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Just speedy delete them. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
+1 JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete; also, two of them I'd be tempted to indefblock as spambots, as they've replaced their spambot-ish text with a completely different spambot-ish text. Note btw that AGF has no official status on Wikibooks; it was never adopted. I've never decided just what I think we should do about AGF here, keeping in mind that Wikinews's Never assume is customized for news, while at the same time I think AGF has done a lot of damage to Wikipedia. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Ettevalmistus KeemiaolümpiaadiksEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Speedy-deleted, at author's request. Accidentally started at English Wikibooks, restarted at Estonian Wikibooks. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

The book should be in Estonian. I have incedently created it under en.wikibooks.org. I wish to continue working on the book under et.wikibooks.org. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olunet (talk • contribs) 15:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I am very sorry. There is one more page to delete: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ettevalmistus_Keemiaolümpiaadiks/Kineetika — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olunet (talk • contribs) 17:32, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Cookie exerciseEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Deleted. Clear consensus. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

This 'book' has existed for more than a year with little work done to it. Maybe it was supposed to be part of another book but as it was created by an IP user and all subsequent edits have been by IP users I have nobody to ask. --ЗAНИA  talk 05:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

  Delete Interesting in theory, but now I'd just call it as abandoned. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Somewhat reluctant   Delete . The trouble is that it's not a book, and doesn't have the potential to be one; it's something that one could imagine occurring in some book, but then one has to try to imagine what book it would be in. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Delete No evolution of the page since 2017. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Delete albeit with some reluctance vice Pi Zero. This could be a beginning exercise in a relatively advanced text on queueing and stocking theory, but without the broader context of the entire book behind it, it is pointless. Chazz (talk) 22:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Anorgaaniline keemiaEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Deleted Accidentally created. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Please delete

Anorgaaniline Keemia

as it should be in Estonian, i.e. under et. Sorry for the inconvenience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.40.193.10 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  Done Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

A Beginner's Guide to Contributing to WikipediaEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Deleted. No opposition. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:08, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Lacks relevant content, practically abandoned. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

  Delete There's really nothing there to help someone else who might choose to pick it up; the original creator didn't write out whatever more may have been in their mind. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 06:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
  •   Delete I think there's a more in depth guide available at Wikiversity. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 13:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
    Though I doubt the existence of a guide on another sister would discourage us from having one here (just as we can have more than one book on a subject ourselves), in this case one could scarcely be less in-depth. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Geodesic GridsEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Done No objections after author provided rationale for deletion. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

The original author has tagged this book for speedy-deletion citing author request. However, the book is well-developed; can the book still be deleted in this case? I would lean towards rejecting the request. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the deletion requests - you don't want it deleted (so the RFD isn't needed) and it is not a valid speedy deletion. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Original author here. There are a number of issues with the content itself, although it might be formatted well :) I asked in Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archives/2018/January#Move_Geodesic_Grids_to_user_sandbox about moving the pages en masse into my sandbox, but I no longer think it's recoverable as a whole. I've brought some of the valid content onto Wikipedia where appropriate, in e.g. w:Geodesic polyhedron and w:Goldberg–Coxeter construction. But yes, I do want this book deleted. -Apocheir (discuss • contribs) 13:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
On hold. Now that the author has said that he plans to export the relevant section to Wikipedia articles and has cited quality issues with the book, I think it can be deleted. Waiting a day for objections. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

List of misconceptions about TamashiiHirokaEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Delete It indeed is useless and falls under the speedy deletion criterion. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Seems irrelevant. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 06:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

PinyinEdit

Similar to Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/English-Hanzi and continuing from Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Pinyin, should more unverified news be deleted?

--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes. We cannot allow spoof in any projects and they are poor learning resources anyway. Delete will be the obvious course of action. I am sure there are more but thanks Jusjih for bringing these out. --Cohaf (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

History of China/The Period of Three CountryEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Delete --Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

This page's content is nonsense, completely different from historical facts. The content is completely wrong and is a strange story made up by the creator of the page. Please delate it so that less people will be misled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.E. user HM J. Y (talk • contribs)

  Delete Seems to be sparse in content to begin with. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  Delete Hoax --94rain Talk 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
  Delete 3 Kingdoms stories start at fall of Kingdom of Han (Not Yan) and rise of yellow turban rebellion. This book is totally BS. --Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 14:25, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete Rubik Cube from PuzzlesEdit

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
  Keep --Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose to delete this page Puzzles/Rubik's cubes from Wikibooks as
(i) Rubik Cube should have its own Wikibooks
(ii) There are already 2 books discuss about this namely How to Solve the Rubik's Cube and Rubik Puzzles. Adding this book won't be adding much values to this project.
Proposed by --Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

  Keep A one-page (or even longer) overview basically summarizing the puzzle and possibly naming the moves is of value in an overview book on puzzles. A complicated puzzle like Rubik's Cube may also require more in-depth analysis, but that's not a reason to leave it out of an overview volume. Chazz (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
  Keep per Chazz. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Delete How Much You Need To Expect You ll Pay For A Good el secretoEdit

As said , propose delete How Much You Need To Expect You ll Pay For A Good el secreto as
(1) It is not in English
(2) Even when you google translate it, it seems like it is copy and paste from somewhere else


Proposed by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be deleted now. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

ElectromagneticsEdit

This book is far too short to be called a book. Since it hasn't been changed in the last months, there is no perspective in my eyes. --Utonsal (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

  Keep - Wikibooks policy is, I think, to keep books that are in their early stages to allow work to be done on them. Granted that there is little happening on this one at present, the field is vast, and work could easily form around the nucleus that is this single page, given time. Chazz (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  Delete In fact, the book appears not to have been edited substantively since 2013 (the most recent contentful edit there appears to have been by QuiteUnusual), and does not appear to provide any meaningful framework for a book. So I don't think there's a viable book there, despite the fact that the apparent topic is big enough to support one. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  Delete There are stub books, and there are books which have virtually nothing in them, and I'm inclined to think that this is the latter. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  Merge This topic are more to A-level Physics topic (from where I am from), perhaps merge to A-level_Physics maybe a wise decision. Decisions by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

SuicideEdit

Moved to the Reading Room here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Big Seven Crypto StudyEdit

This "book" is quite obviously original research as it is the full text of a self-published "study" or "audit" the PDF version of which is hosted on SourceForge. As I note in Talk:Big Seven Crypto Study, I suspect the two original authors mentioned in the text do not really exist. The purpose of this book is to generate some credibility for a very suspicious piece of software called Goldbug Crypto Messenger. I am not a big fan of deleting stuff, so perhaps it is better to review the big fat warning I just added to the top of the book. --Thüringer (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  Delete Opinion: speedy, because original research, plus possible copyvio since we have no assurance the editors here are the writers of the PDF. Chazz (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
  Comment : Move the original research to Wikiversity?--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
Not if it's copyvio. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Media_and_Society:_Summer_2019Edit

Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research.

  1.   Delete JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  •   Comment Possible class textbook attempt? Chazz (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove the Bridge CrossingEdit

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

Exercise as it relates to Disease/Feeling hot for healthEdit

I was going to delete it, but @JackPotte: has seemingly approved it, so I'm bringing it here instead. The content in this article isn't quite suitable to me (it clearly looks like a work in progress, and the talk page of the parent book would be better?) Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

  1.   Delete It now looks like a complete advertising added in an existing book. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  2.   Delete per JackPotte, just inserted to advertise Bikram yoga program, no real connection to book. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Undergraduate MathematicsEdit

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)

  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)
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)
  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)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion&oldid=3587152#Undeletion"