Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

Add new entry

Archived debates

Numbered archives go from oldest up to Nov 2006. More recent discussions are found in the sub-pages. If you can't find the discussion you're looking for in the numbered archives - check the subpages!

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Sub-pages

Archiving

VfDs should be archived on sub-pages (discussion) at Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/
FullPageName (the full page name includes the namespace prefix).

Introduction

1. Please review Wikibooks:Deletion policy before nominating pages for deletion.
2. Please review Wikibooks:Decision making to understand the processed used for judging the outcome.
3. To challenge a deletion decision, see Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion.
4. If you want to transwiki pages in other languages, see Wikibooks:Pages to be transwikied.
5. All pages marked with for deletion with {{vfd}} are automatically placed in Category:Votes for deletion.
6. Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion here.

What is this page?

This page provides a place for the Wikibooks community to debate whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not. Discussion is open to all users, and you may offer alternatives to keeping or deleting. Please be prepared to defend your nominations, reasons and arguments. Votes will be ignored when judging what the outcome is. Well thought out reasons and arguments are considered the best, while comments by anonymous users or by single-purpose accounts may be disregarded depending on their content. Numbers will not necessary have a high impact on the outcome.

Nominating content for deletion

Please add new deletion nominees at the bottom of this page with a link to the module in the heading and a justification for the nomination. Also place the {{vfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Closing debates

Once the outcome is clear (by the time taken and level of participation), the discussion is closed with a statement on the decision. If the nomination survived, add a {{vfd-survived|page=PageName}} to its talk page. Discussions can be closed by anyone. The following templates should be used to "close" the VfD with {{subst:Closed|1=Outcome and ~~~~ to sign}} under the heading and {{subst:End closed}} at the end of the section. Only administrators can delete content. If delete is the decision, but the book has salvageable content, add {{Impending Doom}} template to the top of the book main page. This will alert Wikibookians to the fact.

Conventions used to identify a person's position

:{{keep}} - you believe the nomination should be kept rather then deleted

:{{del}} - you agree that the nomination should be deleted

:{{merge}} - you believe the nomination should be merged with another book

:{{vote/Transwiki}} - you believe the nomination should be deleted after being moved to a different wiki

(The : in front of the templates serves to preserve the custom indentation of votes).

Solar System

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

Transwiki:Korean-Words-English-Transliterated

The module justifies itself by "This will be very useful for begineers (sic)", but I strongly disagree. In learning ANY language, it is crucial to learn the language's own orthography. I can attest (believe it or not) that I have studied some German and (ancient) Greek. In studying German, textbooks do not start by re-writing common German words to conform with English orthography (w -> v, and v -> f for easy ones). And in studying Greek, we rarely ever use Latin transliteration. In fact, to me, Latin transliterations often seemed "ugly" (I know, this is subjective) and inadequate (for one, Greek has different letters for vowels of different lengths; while you could specify that in Latin with macrons, it's not quite the same). What these courses, on the other hand, do start with is how to pronounce words written in its own orthography, and I believe current Korean course fulfills that function quite nicely with Korean/RWP.

And the problem does not end at this simple (but, I believe, powerful) pedagogical reason. This module is unmaintainable. Currently, it states, "Animals, Mah-ri". However, according to the standard Romanization rule (updated some time in the 21st century, I think), it should be "Mari". If we insist on following the Romanization rule approved by Korean government, that means every once in a while (well, perhaps every 5 to 10 years), the entire module has to be re-written, or modified to be compliant with the current rule. If, on the other hand, we insist on writing it so that pronunciation is "natural" for native English speakers, well, which dialect of English should we go with? Standard American (what you hear on news broadcasts)? Scotland? Australian? King's English? Possibilities are endless. But even if we were to agree on, say, "Standard American", some vowels in Korean simply do not exist in English. For example, "으" is often written as "eu" (this is what the standard Romanization rule says it should be written as), but no English-speaker will pronounce that correctly as I have written it there, and I have yet to see a vowel combination in English that would produce that closed vowel (and it is a single vowel, not a diphthong) that is pronounced at the back of the mouth.

I do not think that there is any reason this module, in its current form, should exist. Some of what is included is sound, such as the idea of listing "counting words" (after all, it is something that is not commonly found in English), and perhaps there is room for that in the Korean book (as I see only a red link for "articles & quantifiers", where this might possibly fit). But that listing should be done with Hangul, the writing system for Korean. Anything else is a disservice to the student. novakyu (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete It is no good for beginners. I mean, it could, in a most unusual case, be used in creating a "Language Map", but that could probably be covered by the book on Korean. Also, the nomination is a very reasonable on, better than what is above as a nom. Thoughts? Laleena (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - This was a very poor choice on the part of the Wikipedia editors to even consider Wikibooks as an appropriate place to move this content via transwiki. This should have gone to Wiktionary instead, as it really is a stand alone glossary. I guess I have to go back and fix the {{Move to Wikibooks}} template again on Wikipedia to remind editors there to read WB:WIW before assuming it will be used on Wikibooks. *sigh* In terms of the orthography question, I would have to agree with Novakyu.... you really should use "native" alphabets and spelling conventions if you are teaching a foreign language, and Korean does that fairly well. In fact, nearly all of the words on this list are already done in that Wikibook, and done in a much more complete fashion. I don't even know what benefit would even be gained by moving this to Wiktionary either. --Rob Horning (talk) 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete , I have to agree that this belongs more on Wiktionary. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 02:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
• Transwiki - to Wiktionary. It's a shame this can't be used in Korean, which was the intention, but if the book contributors don't want it, it should be used elsewhere as appropriate.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 19:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment As I'm not a languages person, I try to steer clear of these votes. However, you might also want to consider this ... um, collection of (orphaned) pages: Common phrases in various languages. Webaware ^talk 23:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Merge to various language book and/or Transwiki to Wiktionary.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 23:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

  Comment It does seem like an interesting re-purposing of the module. However, I'd like to point out some differences between the two pages, and what they can be used for:

  • Common phrases in various languages is meant to be useful to travelers, so that they can take a phrase verbatim and use it without any knowledge of the language to convey a limited idea in a limited situation.
  • A list of mere words, such as Transwiki: Korean-Words-English-Transliterated, is not useful to travelers (or any people) in the same way. They need to know the grammar and other details to make phrases that are more intelligible than "dog, Susan, run". I can see how list of common words would be useful for a scholarly study (of cognates and links between languages, like a "language map" mentioned above), but for practical uses, I doubt this will be useful to anyone but those who would like to study the language in more depth, and I still maintain that to these people, such list of words is minimally useful, and when presented in a transliteration into a "non-native" orthography, it is actually harmful.

  I wouldn't say that these two different purposes of the two modules can't somehow be combined. However, I think it's a nontrivial task—at least, to me, it's not clear how one would do that. novakyu (talk) 01:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

City of future

Closed as Delete, strong consensus - Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 21:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Crikey, I don't know where to start. See what you think. Webaware talk 14:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Delete I don't see a possibility of this becoming textbook material. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Delete - definitely not for Wikibooks.  – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Delete Who could call this a textbook? Laleena (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Delete No way of making this into a textbook that I can see. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 17:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC) Delete --Panic (talk) 00:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Delete I don't even know what to say. Hoogli (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Delete --- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Delete - Personal essay and original research. See WB:WIW --Rob Horning (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Cob Construction

Stub, with only a TOC, created in 2006 and abandoned. Webaware ^talk 14:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral. Generally we don't delete stubs, though this one is so small that someone else interested in writing on the topic may just be better off starting from scratch. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - This is a sub-stub. In essence, we can delete it per WB:DICT since the only sentence of content is a definition.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Delete, because the next person to come along and want to work on it should start from scratch, in my opinion. Laleena (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe transwiki to Wikiversity. We could perhaps morph it into a learning project/resource --Remi (talk) 16:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep It's a stub and a well constructed one. I vote against deleting stubs as a rule if some collision is found (another book supporting the same subject) there would be a reason to tag it for merge. --Panic (talk) 00:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Even a table of contents (and a well made one at that) is worth keeping, in my opinion. Hoogli (talk) 02:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - no content, just not worth having the book when there is just nothing in it. - Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Creating a jewel in Blender

We have a rather good book on using Blender 3D. This one seems unnecessary, undeveloped, and unloved. Webaware ^talk 14:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blender 3D, since it looks like this is a page that belonged there but didn't follow the naming convention. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 14:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blender; this is a lost page.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blender 3D. Blender will be a better home for this page. Laleena (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blender 3D. --Panic (talk) 00:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge to Blender 3D, seems logical. --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 09:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How to win heart of your wife

The entire text for this stub says: This is another book from me to be published by January 2008. I have already obtained the copyright for this book. Will show the text in next 2 months. This sounds like a book that won't ever be a Wikibook. Webaware ^talk 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Sure sounds like this one deserves a delete. Probably someone's idea of a test. Laleena (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete , I think the author likely did not understand the concept of the GFDL, and if he or she did, he or she is welcomed to make a comment here. However, I also have doubts about the topic of the book which seems non-textbook material. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete , A clear case for speedy deletion in my view. --Panic (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete People get some pretty crazy ideas when it comes to donating books, and maybe the point isn't made clear enough that certain books just don't belong here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Io and CGI

A bare stub, with no useful information, abandoned in 2006. We already have Io Programming. Webaware ^talk 13:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - nothing useful to merge.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above; a better alternative exists that probably has all the info on this page already. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete because it has no info past some beginning stuff. Laleena (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't even qualify as a stub. --Panic (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Possibly merge into Io Programming, if anything can be found of value worth merging. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Liberty BASIC

Bare stub (two pages) that teaches how to run CLS. Appears abandoned. Webaware ^talk 13:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - we ordinarily keep stubs, but anyone wanting to work on this book would be better off without this holding them back.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete agreed, though we normally keep stubs what little is here makes no sense. Thus we're probably better off deleting it. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete A module that isn't useful anyway. Laleena (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Doesn't even qualify as a stub. --Panic (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete I agree with mike. Some stubs are actually counter-productive because people see the terrible shape of them and are dismayed. It's better to give aspiring authors a blank slate where they can exercise their own creativity, and not lock future authors into poorly thought-out and abandoned stubs. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete I normally support giving people huge amount of room to develop a book... and really stretch the definition of a stub. This doesn't even really fit that quality, and I would have to agree with the above comments that this can be deleted without harming any future effort to expand this topic into a genuine book. --Rob Horning (talk) 16:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Online KDS Documentation

Comment from 2006: This is the main page for the most advanced DICOM viewer, KDS. Stay tuned, more documentation will be added soon. Any day now... Webaware ^talk 13:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - along with that fair use image.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete per above. Laleena (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Panic (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete DICOM is a very important standard in medical imaging, and so is worth it's share of documentation here. However, a single page with a single fair-use image, nothing in the way of explanation, and no hope of ever improving from it's current state, are all reasons to delete this (and the image with it). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Physiology & pharmacology - 3 years of study

Looks like a blog - that went nowhere. I wonder if they made it to second year... Webaware ^talk 14:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - "This book is going to be a lifestory" ← no thanks.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete It looks like a blog that someone started. Besides, if continued, it would be a copyright vio probably, for obvious reasons. Laleena (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Panic (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete The front page's picture is pretty, but that's besides the point. Wikibooks is not for blogging. Hoogli (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --AdRiley (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the Bible

Soap box. Webaware ^talk 14:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - "Evidently, as god = gud = a uniVersal mathematical operator for dimensional inversion, the writer of the text played god by saying that god gave names - of days - while in fact it was the writer who gave these thoughts words." ← this is so not a textbook. SOAP and OR of the worst kind.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete -Not textbook material. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 17:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete NPOV vio, as well as being poorly written. Laleena (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --AdRiley (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - this isn't an NPOV issue... this is original research and expository fictional writing. I will defend bibical study guides, or perhaps something that goes into depth about scriptural personalities, but not stuff like this. There is no basis for defending a contribution or reverting an edit... nearly the very definition of original research. And why original research is strongly discouraged on Wikibooks. This "book" is not in any way related to bibical or any theological study. --Rob Horning (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Rob said everything i could say about this, although I do still worry that there are some inklings of POV in here. Not that it matters, because it fails so many other inclusion criteria. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewriting the Myth of King Arthur

Another soap box. Webaware ^talk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete - I couldn't find a sufficiently ridiculous passage to quote here, but it's definitely a soapbox.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete , tis slippery. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 22:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete I would give the same reason I gave for Rewriting the Bible:NPOV vio. Laleena (talk) 22:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete How about this one Mike :) "By rewriting the myth of King Arthur, they [our children] can learns about balanced sexual relationship" --AdRiley (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Patently absurd. Fails NPOV and NOR. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Risk Strategy

I try to steer clear of games books, but this sounds like what we don't want here... and it's an abandoned stub. Webaware ^talk 14:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete - no meaningful content.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 15:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete Strategy guide and sub-stub, not a textbook. Laleena (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Panic (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete --AdRiley (talk) 07:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Delete As per nomination. We can try to transwiki what is here to strategywiki, but it might be a wasted effort. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Advanced Interactive Media Class

I suggest moving this work into Wikiversity. --Panic (talk) 00:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiversity. --Panic (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki - to Wikiversity. Classes are for Wikiversity, the corresponding textbooks are for Wikibooks. Laleena (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiversity, as per above. Webaware ^talk 02:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiversity. Another one I've been keeping an eye on. I suppose I should have asked them to switch projects earlier.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 14:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC) Keep - I had already emailed the teacher for this class project; not sure if WK is going to email them again. I had misread part of their email, but the edit below clarified things. This is intended to be a textbook, but the students have "gone off the rails" - let's keep this (and undelete Future Media Class) so they can work it back into a textbook.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Keep Leave content as is until March 30th I appreciate feedback regarding my student's WIKI. You are providing the first comments we've seen regarding our content. I'm new to Wikis but getting up to speed ASAP. I spend the majority of my time in media and on-line software but this environment does not seem intuitive to me and I have limited time to devote to it. Along with a dozen media editing tools, students already use on-line courseware (D2L) for class content which I manage as their professor. Wikiversity is redundant to that tool, so I am resistent to using it for that reason. Undergraduate students are assigned to manage our Wikibook so it's not surprising that is has evolved inappropriately. I'll take responsibility to see that content is oriented to a book, not an on-line course, but will need until March 30th 2008 to accomplish this. Moving our information to Wikiversity duplicates the function of D2L software, so I want to keep info. where it is until changes can be made. Neither I nor my students have time to re-link images, etc. so this is important to us. Is it possible to change the name of a book (from Advanced Interactive Media Class to Advanced Interactive Media), once it has been published? AiClassEland (talk) (anonymously as 205.143.139.37 at 14:43, January 29, 2008)

Comment I'll try to get in touch with this user and see if i can help "shepherd" this project into a more acceptable state. Some changes to formatting, possibly a change to the title, and changes in organization should set this up nicely. So long as authors are active, and the long-term intent is to produce a proper book, we should give them time to pursue that goal. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:32, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Help:Replies to common objections

This page seems rather unhelpful when we already have Help:Why contribute? and Help:Contributing FAQ, which serve much of the same purpose, only better.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 18:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment - This is an historically significant page, as it does go into at least some of the early attempts to try and figure out what Wikibooks was all about. I don't know why this was moved to the Help: namespace, as it really wasn't something meant as an explaination but something more akin to the Staff Lounge where some discussion about groking Wikibooks came from. And I'll admit, even after participating on Wikibooks for some time, I still have a harder time trying to see what Wikibooks really is. It is perhaps harder to imagine now, but when this project was first created, there really wasn't a clear idea as to what it was that we were even going to do with this wiki, and there was a huge amount of experimentation to try all sorts of crazy things. This is one of those pages from that era, and should be preserved in some sort of historical record even if the links to it are culled and only referenced in a section of historical pages. --Rob Horning (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - per the concerns cited by Mike. Also, the page is very likely very incomplete, and the format is appalling to the degree that it can hardly be read. Also, who is drawing to the conclusion as to what "common" objections are? --- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete I'm convinced, for my small part, that the majority of the Help: namespace needs to be summarily deleted. Our strength as Wikibookians lies in our books, and book-formatted help resources such as Using Wikibooks, Editing Wikitext, and Wikibooks Community These books, though young and in need of help, are really the route that we should be pursuing for documentation. In a similar vein of thought, if this page is of historical importance it should be distilled and merged into History of Wikibooks, not left in a condition where it is not used, not properly linked, not updated, and not ever appreciated for the possible benefits to posterity that this insight to the early workings of our project holds. The page as it is needs to be removed, but i would like to see it play a part in improving the History of Wikibooks book. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  There are several of this historically significant pages but aren't really effective at introducing Wikibooks to new users any more. Some of which you've named here, and a couple that have been deleted in the past couple of months. As a temporary location (or perhaps "permanent"... as much as that is with Wikibooks), should these be moved to Wikibooks:Historical and sub-pages... with a note that these pages no longer reflect current Wikibooks practices and policies, but these are being preserved for documenting the early history of Wikibooks? I would have to agree that in its current condition they don't belong as a main-stream help page, and new users not knowing the historical context would get lost at trying to understand what is written on this and similar pages. --Rob Horning (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Merge/ Move - Something like Wikibooks:Historical would be fine, but I think merging with History of Wikibooks would be better. I'd love to see a comprehensive history of Wikibooks written. What's there is certainly interesting, but is really just a list of links. At the absolute minimum, the page needs to be rewritten in a readable way. It's really a mess.  – Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)