Wikibooks:Requests for deletion
| 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
|
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:
- 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.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.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)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 21:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Requesting for undeletion of the page "Jumarkese"
edit The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.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 (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 18:54, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
- What do you mean by original research? Jumark27 (discuss • contribs) 06:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- See Wikibooks:Original research. Neither Wikibooks nor Wikipedia allow original research.--Xania talk 07:45, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Deletion
editPages 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.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.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 (discuss • contribs) 07:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- Make it rain wikisource! Wikisource tastes good in pasta. L10nM4st3r / Roar at me 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- @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 (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 10 September 2022 (UTC)
- Make it rain wikisource! Wikisource tastes good in pasta. L10nM4st3r / Roar at me 22:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 01:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Plain text PDFs are generally out of scope on Commons unless they are source documents, which this is not. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Delete per above. Are we still waiting on another Wikiproject to take it? It's persisted here for several months now. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 28 May 2024 (UTC)- General consensus seems to be for deletion—I can see no objections, and this has been open for several months. Unless objections are presented, I will plan to delete it. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 10:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Waiting for v:Wikiversity:Import#New_requests_for_import to reply.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 21:34, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 05:45, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
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 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not sure it's enough of a violation for deletion? Based on a copyvio comparison, the text seems mostly paraphrased. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Delete The content of this page is entirely quotes and summaries of articles. The opening is a copy-paste quote of the linked Rice University page, the "examples of nanomaterials" are taken from doi:10.1021/es0506509 (or, more likely, from another article summarizing it), and the two paragraphs following that are inaccurate summaries of the (already pop-science) New Scientist articles cited. There's no original content here whatsoever, and I'm not even sure how any of this is related to the overall topic of "the computer revolution" - these articles are about chemistry, not computing.
- This entire book is in pretty bad shape, frankly. Everything about it has the look of a class project where each student picked (or was assigned) a topic to write about individually, and their work was combined into a book. The results lack both coherence and quality, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this could ever be fixed short of throwing it all out and starting over. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- After taking another look at the page, I now agree that it at least should be deleted. The content is not useful or coherent, and has issues as described above. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
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)
- Sure, I think I can agree on the removal of these 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.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 (discuss • contribs) 06:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
- Delete If it wasn't outdated, I would vote keep, but... ForTheGrammar (discuss • contribs) 01:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Various pages in Basics of fine-art photography
editThe 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:
- Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians II
- Basics of fine-art photography/Lights of Moscow
- Basics of fine-art photography/Ethiopia through the eyes of traveler
- Basics of fine-art photography/On the roads of India
- Basics of fine-art photography/14 days in Mongolia
- Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians III
- Basics of fine-art photography/Hitchhiking across Sudan
- Basics of fine-art photography/January in Japan
- Basics of fine-art photography/Uganda: tribes and civilization
- Basics of fine-art photography/Tribes of Kenya
- Basics of fine-art photography/Afghanistan, 2008
—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Suited for enWP not WB, appears to be a simple import with no likely development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
This book is essentially a compilation of lists and links—I don't think it's actually in-scope here as a book. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.Seems completely out of WB scope; it's just a collection of unrelated personal essays. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Agreed, personal essays and not ones that can easily be used, at that. I can do stuff! (talk) 12:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't seem in-scope as a book—just seems like a single page on how to do a specific calculation. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
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 (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
- 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 (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Delete . Not only is this material not presented from a neutral point of view, it's not even a mainstream religious POV. Much like Developing A Universal Religion (also up for deletion), the goal of this text appears to be to create and promote a new syncretic religious movement, complete with its own new beliefs and practices; this is very much outside the scope of Wikibooks. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope here; material should be hosted at Wiktionary (I've suggested it there). —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Any content in this dictionary should be already be at wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requested entries (Kashubian)/Kashubian Dictionary, where we will be able to slowly make entries for these. Vininn126 (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope; seems to be an incomplete translation of the bible into a conlang. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned, unclear scope, little content, unclear path for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned, almost no content or developmemt. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - table of contents (without any content) created as a user's only contribution nineteen years ago. Probably safe to assume they aren't going to come back to finish writing it now. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned for two decades without any development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned, very little meaningful content, unclear path for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned, little to no meaningful content, unclear scope or potential for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - an earlier version of this page was imported to Wikiversity as Portal:Linguistics (and subsequently edited into oblivion). The followup edits here aren't needed at WV. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Book is un/under-developed and abandoned, and the scope/potential for development is somewhat unclear to me. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Annotated Republic of China Regulations/Regulations for Road Traffic Signs, Markings, and Signals/1989/Manual for Obtention of Driving licence: Signals and Lights
editAbandoned with non-English. Not belonging under Annotated Republic of China Regulations/Regulations for Road Traffic Signs, Markings, and Signals/1989, that Taiwanese administrative regulation since 1989 would not contain such a manual.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per above —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Has only one page (introduction) with little content. It has been abandoned now for almost 20 years with no development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Extremely minimal content and abandoned for almost 20 years. Was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 but kept on the grounds that it could be expanded—clearly this has not happened. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Fiction / original research - a conlang being (very slowly) created by the author of the book.
The following books are closely related to that project and should be deleted as well:
as well as Biblioþeke, which has already been nominated for deletion.
- Delete all per the above. I can find no evidence of the conlang outside Wikibooks and this sole author. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned how-to book on a topic which is no longer technologically relevant (Windows 7 support ended in 2020), and which thus has no real potential for development.
- Delete Abandoned, little content, no further potential per the above. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Yet another abandoned, underdeveloped book on an obsolete operating system. (Mac OS X Leopard was released in 2007, and has been unsupported since 2011.) If there were more content in this book, it could possibly be refactored into a version-independent book about macOS, but there's effectively nothing here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete . If it were more fleshed out, it could be kept as archival. However, there's so little there. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade, undeveloped, very little content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - 3DTin was a web application which shut down in 2016, so this book no longer serves any purpose, and certainly isn't going to be expanded. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned for many years; consists of only one page for one theorem; no introduction or scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; consists of one page with very little content; no introduction or scope —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned for many years; very little actual content; only real contributor was an IP whose last edit was in 2015. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned for at least a decade; consists of main page only; almost no meaningful content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; consists of main page only; almost no meaningful content; unclear scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
One page only; abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content; scope unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete . HP OpenView no longer exists as a product (and its successor HP Network Management Center has been discontinued as well!); neither does HP's certification exam for it. There's certainly no purpose in writing a new guide for a nonexistent exam for a obsolete product. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned for ~1 decade; little to no meaningful content; one paragraph in entire book; scope unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Not particularly in scope for the book as it is; content is not particularly meaningful, educational, helpful, or well-developed (e.g. what does it mean for red blood cells to "helps in structure of the body"?) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete . Even if the strange or outright wrong statements were removed (like describing a cell as "a small particle or organism", or implying that red and white blood cells are the only types of cell!), this sort of very basic explanation would be more at home in an introductory text on biology, not a text on biochemistry which assumes familiarity with these topics. (And indeed, there are much better explanations in books like Biology, Answering the Big Questions of Life/Cells.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems to be out of scope, since Wikibooks does not host fiction. –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; only contains main page with little content; scope not well-defined. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; very little content; unclear scope/path to completion —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; one chapter only, which contains only a handful of sentences. Not enough content and no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Pages in Security+ Certification
editBoth Security+ Certification/Threats and Vulnerabilities and Security+ Certification/Network Security seem to be deprecated per @Tule-hog's recent overhaul; moreover, the pages in question seem to consist entirely of outlinks to Wikipedia. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Obsolete Microsoft certification guides
edit- MCSE Server 2003 Certification Core Exams (exam 70-290 retired July 2013)
- Microsoft Certified IT Professional (exam 70-444 retired June 2011; exam 70-450 retired July 2015)
- Microsoft Certified Professional Developer (exams 70-526, 70-528, 70-529, 70-547, 70-548 retired June 2011; exams 70-290, 70-536 retired July 2013)
These books all correspond to Microsoft certification exams which were retired in 2011-2015, and consist almost entirely of lists of course objectives copied from official course materials. There's almost no original educational content in any of these three books, and it's highly unlikely that they're going to be improved, since the certification exams they correspond to are no longer offered.
(Reference for the exam retirement dates is: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/credentials/support/retired-certification-exams)
Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per the above; additionally, some of these have very little content at all. Some pages may be candidates for speedy deletion. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Little to no meaningful content, abandoned >1 decade. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Nothing particularly salvageable from this. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Very little meaningful educational content; seems like opinion at most? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Very little content at all, no outline or potential for development; abandoned for years. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Out of scope at Wikibooks since this is already completely covered by Wiktionary. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment English-Arabic dictionary/Colors in Arabic gets a nontrivial amount of traffic (~50 views/day). It'd be nice if we could at least preserve this as a redirect to an equivalent resource. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned 17 years; consists only of paltry introduction. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little to no meaningful content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; undeveloped (single page only); no scope or plan for expansion/future development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little to no meaningful content; mostly a few section headers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
No meaningful content; chapter list only; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; very little content; unclear scope; no path forward for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - readers would be much better off with Valgrind's own quick start guide (which is even freely licensed). Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Original research/soapbox/NPOV; abandoned >1 decade; main page only —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - out of scope religious/philosophical content similar to #Developing a Universal Religion, but less developed. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content; no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned; main page only; no meaningful content; no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Abandoned; little to no meaningful content; one page only with little content; no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Orphaned page; little to no meaningful content; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Very little content and no substantial edits since its creation in 2021. Even if developed, it's unclear how it would differ from w:SpaceX Starship. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per listed reasons. It has almost no content and is abandoned. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)
Scope unclear; abandoned with no plan for development; little to no meaningful content; most pages qualify for speedy anyway. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)