Pages and books can be deleted byadministrators. 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:
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 toview 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 atAdministrative Assistance.
Latest comment:8 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion
This page had several years of editing on English Wikipedia, then was moved over to Wikibooks. I'm an admin on enwiki, so I've undeleted the parent article on enwiki and put it the Draft namespace over to decide what do with the prose (seew:Draft:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances). I think it would be possible to create a coherent book about voting systems using this example to tie together the explanations of various voting systems. Since I'm not an admin on English Wikibooks, I can't see what work was done after the move was performed, so I'd like to see what (if anything) other folks were able to do with the material after the move. --RobLa (discuss •contribs)21:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
This is a good question! When I started out in the cookbook several years ago, I also created redirects like this. However, I was told at the time that Wikibooks does not use redirects in this way. I am open to further discussion about this, especially with the Cookbook, since it does not function like the other books on the project. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)19:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's an interesting point. In terms of my personal opinion, I am currently neutral about redirects like this. I do think having these redirects can be helpful in some cases, especially given the wide range of terminologies used in cooking and the collaborative nature of the cookbook. However, excessive and unnecessary redirects (e.g. with all potential capitalization options) can create clutter. And, if I recall correctly, it's generally best practice to never link directly to redirect pages, instead linking to the correct end-page and subsection as appropriate. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)17:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure why it would be a problem to link directly to a redirect page. The wikitext doesn't care; the parser doesn't care. I'm not sure why anyone would create a rule against it.WhatamIdoing (discuss •contribs)06:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
IMO I will have to concur withWhatamIdoing that it's a terrible rule, especially all the more thatWP:CHEAP and makes these books more accessible (broken redirects can always be dealt with later); that still said I will say no to restoring these redirects until we get the policy changed. --SHB2000 (discuss •contribs)10:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's all down to books v articles. A book is supposed to be self-contained. So, a redirect from an alternative BOOK title to the actual book is okay - e.g., from "Fizzicks" to "Physics". But redirects that go to one page in a book are discouraged as it is creating a structure more like individual articles and creates pages that shouldn't exist. E.g., we don't have a standalone page called "Heat exchange", it's a subpage of Physics, Physics/Heat Exchange". Following the same philosophy you wouldn't have a redirect from "heat exchange" because things that aren't subpages should be books, and there is no book about heat exchange. Similarly, cross namespace redirects were discouraged (e.g., from mainspace to the cookbook space) as the cookbook is supposed to be one, very large, self contained book. Anyway, if I recall correctly, that was the theory.MarcGarver (discuss •contribs)14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
It sounds like they don't wantHeat exchange to redirect toPhysics/Heat exchange, because someone might later want to write a whole book about Heat Exchange.
Thank you for the information! I think my personal opinions regarding linking are as follows:
I agree with keeping books separate from each other and therefore agree that simple inter-book linking and inter-project linking should not be done within actual content pages. For example, if a book on philosophy used the word "physics" somewhere in the text, that word should not be wikilinked toPhysics. Exceptions could be deliberate connections/references to another book (e.g. "see-also" or "further reading" chapters separate from the main content).
The cookbook has, for over a decade, been operating slightly differently from the other books in the project. It is its own subproject, which is reflected in the namespace and the way it uses categories. It is also a massive work that is continuously expanding through small additions by various contributors, and its pages are deeply interconnected with each other. Additionally, words for many of the concepts discussed in the cookbook have different names and are different in various cultures—redirects prevent incorrect linking and the creation of pages that already exist. For these reasons, I think it's okay to create redirects for its frequently-used subpages (e.g. ingredient/equipment/technique pages) that are often linked to in recipes.
Pages that qualify forspeedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs onWikibooks ornot for allother 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.
Pleaseadd a new request for deletionat 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 relevantpolicy 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.
Keep -You have to consider also that projects can be merged (I have not checked if there is a possible match) in any case consider it a stub with valid content. It is a stub (November 2018) there is the problem of a namespace collision since it identifies as a specific topic (but as you identified is a very limited scope). Had I the time I would create a structure around it and contribute to it in the subject of Entropy or how our non-existing reality, is also "evaporating" into nothing...
Keep: a book selecting vocabulary into introductory groups is very different from a lexical database such as Wiktionary. In Wiktionary, one does not know where to start learning the vocabulary. Admittedly, the title gives excessively broad scope, so something should probably be done. (The argument with 50 views/day has some force.) --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
I centralized at Wikiversity since the projects (as of now) are compendiums of links and resources based on the listed objectives of each exam, sometimes with explicitly suggested 'activities'. Very little in the way of 'book'-like exposition.Tule-hog (discuss •contribs)21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Inexplicably, the links on the main page of this book all point to pages underw:User:Hazel45onnie/User Page Builderon the English Wikipedia. I'm nominating those pages for deletion on enwiki as a separate process (here).
These books were all generated using Wikiversal, a third-party wiki editing tool written byUser:Planotse which is no longer downloadable. Many of them contain broken internal links or other outdated content (like references to Wikiversity being a subproject of Wikibooks), and the HTML-heavy markup generated by Wikiversal makes them unreasonably difficult to edit.
(As as aside, the markup used for these "presentations" is completely broken on the mobile site, e.g.[1]. For some reason, the forward/back buttons are invisible, making it impossible to navigate from page to page.)
The first three books are all instructions on how to use Wikiversal itself. Since it's no longer available, they are of no use. The fourth, while described as a "Wiki tutorial", primarily instructs users to use Wikiversal to build pages on the wiki; its main page should probably be redirected toUsing Wikibooks as a much more comprehensive resource.
It isn't inexplicable that these pages and links are on the English Wikipedia. The spammers who developed these pages were primarily trying to peddle software for use on the English Wikipedia. Their pages on the English Wikipedia are also pending deletion as misusing Wikipedia for web hosting.Robert McClenon (discuss •contribs)18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Based on the name and some of the user's (now deleted) activity on Wikiversity, I think the software was actually intended primarily for use on Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. Why they decided to host some of its documentation on Wikipedia is a mystery.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Beyond their introductions, all of these books are written in languages which are not English, making them out of scope for the English Wikibooks.
All but one of these books are in fact written in constructed languages, most of them in recently created conlangs. In some cases (e.g.Sin Chao, Jonathan!), I can't find any reliable sources describing the target language outside of the translation itself.
Most of the translations (i.e. other thanSalute, Jonathan! itself) were abandoned within the first five or so chapters (out of 100); none of them are complete, and there seems to be little effort to complete any of them.
I'm really not sure what to do about these ones. While I recognize that this approach is certainly one method of teaching a language, I'm not sure that it constitutes an educational textbook. We do require that the English Wikibooks be written in English—for language-learning books, this typically means that the instructional parts are in English while the exercises are in the language being taught. I do think that if the language doesn't have much supporting evidence outside the book itself, it can safely be deleted. —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)01:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Author of the book here. I originally wanted to put it in the Interlingue Wikibookshttps://ie.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principal_p%C3%A1gine but it somehow got locked when I wasn't paying attention and so I ended up putting it here. Getting it unlocked requires going through the process of starting an Incubator and all the rest so I opted for here and then started putting some English-only content once it was done. It's sort of in the same vein as books like Lingua Latina per se Illustrata that have separate versions with teacher notes and whatnot.Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 1 - with notes After it was done the auxlang community really took to it which was a nice surprise. I think Ido has the largest number of chapters at the moment at 15.
If the vast content of this book could be used to justify a quick reopening of the Interlingue Wikibooks to move it there, I'd love to do that. I imagine that an incubator with 100+ book chapters would be enough to open a Wikibooks and that's what this is.
Hi @Mithridates! I'm not sure how incubator projects work, but I fully support migrating these books there. You may want to inquire over there and link to this discussion to support your request to move the content over there. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)13:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi!
Actually I have a third idea to propose after thinking about this again today (haven't been here much since I finished the book): I noticed that there is more English content than I remember and that might make it an awkward fit for the Interlingue Wikibooks. I definitely agree that having all the auxlang translations for new auxlang projects goes well beyond the scope of this Wikibooks. Finally, there are some auxlangs that are notable with their own Wikipedias.
So the idea is the following:
1 Leave the original here and I can continue the work on the version with English notes and grammar. That will make it the same as Lingua Latina per se Illustrata, English by the Nature Method, Athenaze and all the rest.
2 The Interlingua one can move to the Interlingua Wikibooks (maybe Romanica too if they want as it is sort of a dialect of Interlingua).
3 For Ido and Lingua Franca Nova which have a Wikipedia but not a Wikibooks, I'm a little bit unsure...technically they could have their own version like the original one but would require English explanations. I could let them know and see if they are willing to do so and see what they think (work on adding English to the books vs. move the content elsewhere).
4 The rest can move to a Github repo, then be deleted, and the front page of this book can have a single link to the repo.
Any thoughts on that? Adding the extra English content will be easy as it is my book and I know it inside and out. Edit:this page I just added.
Thanks for taking the time to consider this! Here are my responses/questions:
Is the originalSalute, Jonathan! (Occidental)? Since that one is quite fleshed out, I agree that if you edit it so the primary language of the book (e.g. headers, instructions, etc) are written in English while leaving the actual story in Occidental, it would be okay and fit in more with instructional language textbooks.
For your points 2 and 3, I'm not sure how those other projects work, so I'll leave it up to them. I'm not quite sure why they would need to move, since in theory they could be revised with English as the language of instruction? Although, they have been left incomplete for a long time.
It's the weekend so I have a bit more time to work on this. I've decided to merge the extra content from the following five chapters since the difference is fairly small and the original chapters should now have this English content. Could you delete these five pages now that they are no longer needed?Mithridates (discuss •contribs)14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Hi again! No luck trying to find a home for the random language translations on other auxlang wikis, can't find one that is actively maintained.
The thought struck me that maybe I could just put those ones on a sub page of my user page, would that be permitted? If not, I think I'll just stick them somewhere in GitHub and call it a day since none of the people who started the translations seem to care enough to do anything about them. I'd rather not see them outright disappear but since they aren't mine I don't care enough about them to do much more work than copy and paste them somewhere.
(I would leave the ones in languages with an ISO-639 code and Wikipedia here, of course)
Thanks a lot! I've started a single page where I will put them all hereUser:Mithridates/SJ and will proceed slowly due to lack of time and also to avoid stepping on any toes / asking you to delete too much at a time and possibly deleting the wrong content.
For this week I have put the content for the languages Audia, Cristianès, Guosa, Lingaust, Mini, Mirad, and Monav on that page as they all have a single page of content and didn't take much time to move. Please delete those. Once they are gone I will add a note on the main page letting people know where they have gone (in addition to a thank you for their interest in the book! I do love how many people have recognized it as a good source material for teaching a language).Mithridates (discuss •contribs)04:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Keep the translations for languages that have an article on the English Wikipedia, i.e. Guosa, Idiom Neutral, Ido, Interlingua, Lingwa de Planeta, Negerhollands, Neo, Novial, Occidental, Romanica, Solresol, Toki Pona, and Volapük.
Translations for languages that don't have an article can be kept if they have reliable sources, which I was able to find for the following languages (if you think they are not reliable, please let me know):
Delete and move toUser:Mithridates/SJ the rest of the translations, i.e. Audià/Audian, Cristianés, Ekumenski, Germanisch, Interocidental, Lingaust, Lingue Simple, Masa Tang, Mirad, Monav, Monkel, Mundeze, Nordien, Novlingue, Numo, Proyo, and Scuian/Meteza. If you can find reliable sources for those languages, please let me know.
In particular, I could not find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav after searching through 15 and 17 pages on Google, respectively. It doesn't help thattheirtranslations don't explain what those languages are and where to find resources for them. This makes contributing to those translations almost impossible until @Caro de Segeda can provide resources to us. It's possible that the resources may have disappared from the Internet, or that those languages were created by Caro de Segeda him/herself. If you can find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav, please let me know.
Latest comment:1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Survived deletion previously on the justification that it could potentially be expanded, but it's since been over a decade with no improvement; extremely minimal educational content —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)02:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
A collection of fragmentary biographies and interviews of members of the ODU (Old Dominion University) art department. Some of these are individually interesting, I guess, but they don't really add up to a history of the department, let alone to an instructional text. Most editing activity appears to have been around 2008-09; there's almost no activity since then.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Comment I have to agree here. And, issues with the book's suitability for inclusion here have been raised on the talk page since its beginning. I'm concerned that this ultimately violatesWB:WIW, and I can't see it being properly developed at this point. —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi @Ooswesthoesbes! While I understand your perspective, I unfortunately disagree. Wikibooks has a huge number of abandoned stubs like this one, which I think results in clutter and makes the entire project less useful as a result. Due to their nature and structure, books require a greater committed investment to make than, say, WP articles, and these little scraps are rarely developed here. This book has had plenty of opportunity for expansion since you started it over a decade ago, but nobody has actually made any effort to do so. Based on the evidence from the past decade, when weighing the likelihood of the book being properly developed going forward versus the active negative impact of its continued presence in this state, I favor deletion. Moreover, in the rare case that someone came along later and wanted to revive this book specifically, it could be undeleted. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
Wow, I didn't even remember this one. I think it's perfectly clear how this is educational and the scope couldn't be clearer, either, but I'm not going to finish it so go ahead and delete it.Főszerkesztő Úr (discuss •contribs)12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
These three books do make a package and I agree they should be considered together. However, I strongly object to deleting them. They are really extremely useful resources. I use them every week and I know that many people who do work on Old Chinese phonology do so. There are lots of books out there that are lists of characters, these are called dictionaries. For example Axel Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, or Pulleyblank's Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. I see it as entirely a good thing for reference works of this kind to be available free online rather than only in expensive books in university research libraries. If this is in violation of a Wikibooks policy, I would at least like that policy to be drawn to my attention and to have some constructive comment offered about which Wikiproject such a resource should fall under. I will also say on a personal note that I have put literally hundreds of hours of work into these projects and it would grieve me a lot to see this work simply vanish, in particular when I know that colleagues around the world use these books. --Tibetologist (discuss •contribs)07:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
The policy says to use Wiktionary, but these books cannot be moved there. In fact they link there, you can understand me as having made an index to wiktionary, if you like, where the ORDER of the characters is extremely important, information that would be lost in Wiktionary.
Wikiversity is not a project I participate in, and in any event my books here are older than it, so this option was not available for me at the relevant moment. If you are offering to move my books to Wikiversity, that is very kind of you and I will very graciously accept.Tibetologist (discuss •contribs)14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
I concur. I'm just an undergrad who tries to learn about Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics in his free time but I've found this wikibook to be incredibly useful, and I keep it open in one tab while I watch Professor Nathan Hill's lectures that he uploads to youtube in another tab, and another tab for taking notes. In fact if I remember correctly Professor Hill actually pointed his students to this wikibook.
Delete - this is essentially a self-help book (or at least, a clumsy attempt to write one). I'm inclined to say that this isn't a genre which is suitable for Wikibooks, as any self-help book is inherently an expression of personal opinion.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)01:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)Reply
I was going to say whether we should ask any fiwikibooks sysop to maybe see if this could be transwikied to fiwb if it's within the scope there. Butfi:Toiminnot:Käyttäjät/sysop indicates that there are only 3 sysops, and onlyAnr andZache have made edits thisyear. If they deem it to be salvageable, then transwiki + delete, otherwise straight-up delete. --SHB2000 (discuss •contribs)11:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
It seems that the idea behind the book was for the pages to be bilingual, as it’s a language learning book. That’s why there are Finnish texts included intentionally even on the pages that are complete. There are similar books in dewikibooks and ruwikibooks as well. For the English version, I think the easiest way to proceed would be to clean up and adjust the page layout to fit enwikibooks better, and then translate the missing parts. By the way, if anyone wants to update the book’s name in English, it can be titled"Using the Finnish Language" or"Put Finnish Language into Use" for a direct translation.Zache (discuss •contribs)11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Anextremely outdated FAQ on AT&T's cell phone services. Most of this document was written 20+ years ago as a Usenet FAQ; very little of it is accurate or useful anymore (particularly the two subpages, which have to do with obsolete configurations for "tethering" a computer to a cell phone). No objection if someone wants to update it, but there's clearly been no appetite to do that.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm wondering if it might make sense for us to develop some kind of policy on archiving books here. There are many like this one that have a good deal of content but are extremely out of date and just not useful as originally intended. ——Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ooh, thanks - something like that seems like it could be an appropriate way to handle this book. A lot of the other outdated books I've tagged have been so incomplete that they wouldn't have been particularly useful even as historical references; this one might at least have some interest.
Please note that I am only nominating the talk page for deletion.
This talk page is a copyright violation. It copies content from anunrecoverable talk page from enwiki, and the attribution provided ("Copied talk page from en:Talk:Grilled cheese sandwich") is insufficient, as it fails to account for the GFDL's requirement that "... you must ... Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page." The history provided is only of the associated cookbook page, not the talk page itself.JJPMaster (she/they)05:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This appears to be documentation for an internal web application at the National Center for High-performance Computing in Taiwan which is no longer online. (It's unclear if it was ever available to the public in the first place, or if it was only available to staff.) Either way, the documentation is of no use to us or anyone.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)03:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The Chinese edition of the OpenSSH wikibook is only a tiny fragment of a single page which has remained abandoned since 2017. Furthermore, the text which it contains is not even based on the actual book. Please tidy things up by deleting theChinese OpenSSH book page and removing all links to it, if any, which are found on the main book. Thanks.
If the page cannot be deleted, please at least remove the link to it from the English edition of theOpenSSH book. Thanks again.
@Larsnooden We cannot do the first one (you'll need to bring it up directly with the zh.wikibooks users), and the second one is also difficult, because the interwiki links are actually hosted on Wikidata and I am not sure if we can remove a link for this reason.Leaderboard (discuss •contribs)12:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)Reply
It looks like a deletion discussion has been created; however, it also looks like there's very little activity on the discussion page, with some discussions having been open for several years. So I wouldn't hold my breath.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)01:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:9 months ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I personally believe thatthis, and all of the sections should be deleted for the fact that this goes WAY beyond the scope of what was intended for the Chapter (Algebra II level polynomials).GoreyCat (discuss •contribs)15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'm not certain this is a good fit for Wikiversity either. It's essentially a collection of student essays written in 2007 on various topics related to education. If this were an active project there'd be more of an argument for moving it, but in its current state I don't think it makes sense to keep. It's hopelessly mired in opinion and often badly outdated; I'm inclined to say the answer will be toDelete it.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)Reply
These are now all duplicate pages that were:(1) originally created by @Xeverything11 in Dec 2024
by extracting portion of History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies;
(2) then "blanked" (all content removed) by myself in Dec 2024
contemporaneous with discussions with @Kittycataclysmat and @Leaderboard in Reading_room/General (topic: Page Size);
(3) then reverted by @JJPMaster in Feb 2025 with a suggestion that the pages needed to be referred for Speedy Deletion here.
The individual alphabetical pages are now duplicates and orphans and should be deleted.The original pages have been updated over the last two months and the existence of the duplicate pages serves no purpose and is confusing
Latest comment:8 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion
The 2009 UIL Spelling Competition was over 15 years ago; it's unlikely that this outdated word list would be of use to anyone - especially since it was never completed; the last word defined (in alphabetical order) is "casus belli", and the word list itself stops at "futurity race". I'm not sure the full list is even available anywhere, nor that the study manual would be any more useful even if it were finished.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. Clearly abandoned, and lacking in meaningful content. I agree with the nominator that this would be unlikely to be useful even if it were able to be finished.MediaKyle (discuss •contribs)11:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Development of Puredyne Linux was discontinued in 2012, and the software no longer appears to be available for download anywhere. (An archive of the web site is still up - with a bunch of embedded spam links - but the download links are all dead.) Is this a suitable candidate for archival (cf.Wikibooks:Outdated books), or should it just be deleted?Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)04:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd just archive stuff like this. Looks like a decent bit of work went into it, and you never know when someone might need to use Puredyne for some obscure project. I'd be willing to bet mirrors exist of it somewhere, or someone has it on a drive. If you want to find some stuff worth deleting, comb throughCategory:Allbooks categories.MediaKyle (discuss •contribs)11:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:8 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion
This book aimed to become a catalog of "all known laptop computer models". Whether this sort of database is even in scope for Wikibooks is questionable. But it's beyond question that the book has failed to achieve its objective - out of the many thousands of models of laptops that have been manufactured, this book only has information on a few dozen, mostly from around 2010 (when it was written). Most of the subpages are incomplete, and there seems to be little interest in improving or updating the book.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Intuitively or from heart, I would delete the material as per above: it is too underdeveloped and has been so for a long time. However, it is not clear that it matches policy. To address a possible policy problem, I startedWikibooks:Reading room/General#Deleting stale stubs. The policy states: "In general, keep stubs that can be improved on, but delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about." --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
As a matter of policy, I'm fairly certain that a book of this nature would already be out of scope perWB:NOTWP. If an encyclopedia or dictionary is out of scope as insufficiently "book-like", a catalog like this is only more so.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
That seems right: "Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic nor are pages encyclopedia-formatted articles. Books build knowledge from one page to the next, with interdependency between pages. Books in progress are sometimes organized in an encyclopedic manner until developed into proper books. For an encyclopedia, see our sister project Wikipedia." However, I think this is a bad policy as formulated, in part since it would lead e.g. to deletion ofWindows Batch Scripting. That is to say, I do not think chapters/sections/parts of a book should be required to be integrated, one building on another. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)19:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Much of the content was copied before dual licensing was introduced at Wikibooks and is therefore not a violation of the policy that was in force at the time. This is therefore not a valid deletion reason for any content that pre-dates the introduction of dual licensingMarcGarver (discuss •contribs)11:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete - the fact that the content of this book is almost entirely copied from an outside source is itself a problem, regardless of the license of that work. The purpose of Wikibooks is to develop new freely licensed texts, not merely to create copies of existing texts.A 2009 request for deletion was closed as "keep on the condition it is developed and not hosted as a completed work". Over fifteen years later, this still hasn't happened, and there's no indication that it ever will.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)04:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete - what little content exists in this book is badly out of date. Computer security has changed a lot over the last ~20 years; the basic recommendations made in this book like "you should have a configuration management system" or "make sure your server cabinet is locked" simply don't cut it anymore.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)22:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Abandoned, fragmentary manual for a piece of web design software which was discontinued in 2008. Further development seems unlikely; no substantial edits have been made in the last 15+ years.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:5 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
PerWB:SOURCE. The previous RFD was closed as no consensus though there was reasonable evidence to delete. Previous discussions had suggested that the book could be improved, but it has now been several years without progress or moves to annotate the book for compliance with WB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment:4 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Abandoned with no substantial content since 2004. Most of the current page appears to be an attempt to create a community home page (e.g. a list of project ideas and a link to a defunct Yahoo chat), not a book.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)23:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)Reply
This user has definitively created pages with completely fabricated information (Geometry/Contributors andGeometry/Authors, since deleted). To me, this makes all the pages they have created highly suspect in terms of accuracy. Because of this and because it will be challenging and time-consuming to validate their creations with current activity on this project, my instinct is to conservatively delete them. However, I do not feel comfortable making this executive decision myself and am bringing it for community discussion. Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)02:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
I'd opt to delete. All of the content created by this user has extensive formatting problems - it looks like it was written in a mixture of Markdown and LaTeX, not MediaWiki syntax, and the user hasn't made any attempt to correct that. (This is a common sign of unsupervised LLM use.) Given this obvious lack of care, I have very little faith that the content created is correct or meaningful.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)20:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Hi. I am the creator of the pages of this book. If I understand correctly, it has to be a summary of a notable work of literature? So what exactly is defined as such? I only started this as I thought it would be fun, interesting and encouraging to others who read the Arkham Horror novels, and I thought it was permitted as I've seen other summaries of books on wikibooks.Dayne90 (discuss •contribs)13:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
And ideally it'd be a text which hasalready been the subject of literary analysis, such that the analysis on Wikibooks isn't original research. A notable work of literature likeFrankenstein orMoby-Dick would easily meet that requirement; a tie-in novel for a tabletop RPG probably does not.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)22:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)Reply
Author of the book/page here. I wouldn't call it "abandoned": it's still a start, but I'm here and do plan to fill out the rest (most of the annotations are for the early part of the book though).
I'm an experience editor at Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but am not very familiar with Wikibooks standards. When reading this book, I found myself looking up unfamiliar terms and quotes and thought some annotations would be helpful when reading or especially studying the text. It's a notable book by a notable author (extensive Wikipedia page). Here the source text is not freely available, but annotations are easy to add separately. I looked atWB:AT and existing examples of annotations and tried to follow them. PerWB:WIW, the scope is instructional texts (including annotated texts), and minor works are in scope.
I'll grant that this is not large and not likely to become very long – many books only need minor annotations – but the content would certainly have been helpful to me when reading this book.
Are there specific changes you'd suggest or general guidelines to follow in this kind of book?
Latest comment:1 month ago10 comments5 people in discussion
This book consists almost entirely of computer source code, including an extensive "library" which the example code elsewhere in the book relies on; there is almost no text in the book to accompany the code. This type of content is not well suited to Wikibooks. The code might be more appropriate on a source code hosting site, such as Github or Codeberg.
You are right. I left the explanation of the mathematical part to the Wikipedia articles. I explained step by step the functions allowing to write the main functions of the library, such as for example the functions calculating gauss jordan, the QR decomposition The eignvalues and the eigenvectors The pseudo inverse.
I think that this work is an interesting educational work as well for programmers as for beginner mathematicians to familiarize themselves with linear algebra.
Is this a problem that can't be solved with userfying? I agree that a book that is basically just code with no actual introductory text and explanatory material is not really a textbook, but in principle, hosting code that is useful for learning is appropriate for here or certainlyv:. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯08:50, 18 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
This book is criticized for providing a library. If you look at programming books that cover a particular topic, they are usually accompanied by a library that is printed in the text. The library in this book represents a quarter of the book and can be downloaded in 2 hours which seems reasonable.
The goal of this book is to familiarize students with the properties of linear algebra and to present some applications of linear algebra. "Github or Codeberg" don't seem suitable for this kind of work, wikibook does.
Study of properties:
This book lists some properties and provides for each property a file working on random values to test the property. The result of this file is given in the book and allows to verify this property. "This book is not composed almost entirely of computer source code", since half of it is composed of the execution of that code. This represents the numerical verification of a property. The proof of the property is left to mathematics books.
Re.If you look at programming books that cover a particular topic, they are usually accompanied by a library that is printed in the text.: This is, quite simply, not the case. Modern books about computer programming are virtually always decoupled from the software they describe; they are usually written well after the software has already been made available to users, by authors independent from the creators of the software. Publishing software as printed code in a book is not a thing which is done.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)23:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
You're right today. In my day, a book on C language and the graphs and data structures gave a library to copy at the end of the book. A book on mathematics and the C language gave its small library to test the book's examples. A book on Pascal and graphics gave its library. Unfortunately, I lost the references.Xhungab (discuss •contribs)09:31, 21 October 2025 (UTC)Reply
These pages are all either fictitious, or so poorly referenced as to be indistinguishable from fiction. The focus of this book should be documenting micronation roleplay from an out-of-universe perspective, not hosting content documenting events within that roleplay.
(There were some real armed conflicts surrounding Sealand, but the pages involving those are completely unsourced; given that these conflicts involved living people, unsourced biographical claims are not acceptable.)
Selected subpages of "List of already existing micronations":
These are, with one exception, pages which contain no references and are written from an in-universe perspective. There are an extremely large number of micronations which "exist" (in someone's imagination); the focus of this section of the book should be on ones which are particularly notable.
Republic of Somaliland is the exception. It is a content fork ofen:w:Somaliland; while there is a valid argument that Somaliland is a micronation of sorts, copying the Wikipedia article wholesale is not appropriate for this book (and violates Wikipedia's content license by failing to credit the authors). A page on this topic should summarize whatever details are relevant to the book and direct the reader to the Wikipedia article for further information.
Due in large part for my efforts our project started to be able to handle different books around the same subject but with distinct POVs and educational structure (diversity should always be welcomed and even celebrated when it also is able to share the sandbox), this lead to at least two other C++ projects one has not only been feature but C++ creator gave it some accolades.
If I recall the history correctly the project was started byUser:Darklama (to prove a point that a different structure should be adopted and more valid to learning C++, we had a clash when he wanted to reformat C++ Programming). I remember that my contributions to this different project was more an olive branch an empowerment to Darklama´s constructive contributions a prompting to make it evolve into something more than an index created to make a point, as Darklama was more about format that content. That was why we clashed on C++ Programming expecially when he started using admnin rights to delete pages and their edit history. In any case I feel this stub and the simple content present is valid and should be preserved. If you strongly feel there is little content, I wouldn't object a merge another C++ book (some of it can even be used in another programming language work as its mostly introductory IIRC). --Panic (discuss •contribs)22:29, 5 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete. What little content exists in this book is presented poorly, and is often simply wrong. For example,Understanding C++/Objects - one of the more fleshed-out chapters of the book - claims that:
C++ defines 8 basic object types.char,short,int,long,long long,double,long double, andbool.
Even discounting that these are fundamental types, not "object types", this list completely omits types likevoid andfloat, or thesigned andunsigned variants of each integer type (which are each a distinct type). The page doesn't even acknowledge the existence of pointers or arrays, either - both of which are critical to C++ programming.
Stubs are not a good enough reason for deletion (and this is more than a stub) and moves to user-space only by user agreement an no opposition. In any case what user would you ask about it ? --Panic (discuss •contribs)21:53, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
I propose tomove to user space, but I do not object todeletion. This is not a book; it is a jumble of strangely organized information. I struggle to see how anyone except the author and perhaps his collaborators can benefit from it. Disclaimer: I dealt with various kinds of material bySaltrabook(discuss·email·contribs·logs·count) in the English Wikiversity, which may impact my perception or assessment. --Dan Polansky (discuss •contribs)11:04, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
Delete - the only explanation I can imagine for this is that it was being used as a personal notebook. It is certainly not a textbook, and I can't imagine any way it could be made into one.Omphalographer (discuss •contribs)19:45, 9 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
↑In other words, this is a deprecated template that hasn't been used since at least 2010. Any files that previously would have qualified for that designation fit better under other license templates. It wasoriginally intended to only be applicable for files uploaded before 2006 anyway, but that deadline was inadvertently removed by an admin trying to replace the template with an imbox. Besides, the GFDL isn't even the main license of Wikibooks anymore.
The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Merge I agree this is not a book by itself, but lots of books have a section about how to calculate half-life stuff -- including some already on Wikibooks:A-level Physics (Advancing Physics)/Half-lives,What You Should Know About Medicines/Half life, or how often to take it,Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine/The Radioactive Decay Law#Half-Life,AP Chemistry/Nuclear Chemistry#Half Life,A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Radioactivity#Half-life,A-level Mathematics/OCR/C3/Special Functions and Transformations#Example of Half-life decay,Introduction to Radioisotope Geochronology/Part Two - Principles of Radioisotopic Dating#Decay Constants and Half Lives, etc. Perhaps this is common enough thatHalf-Life Computation could be merged/moved into a page ofEngineering Tables so that it could be shared across several Wikibooks, in the same way that the ASCII table in Engineering Tables is already shared across several Wikibooks. --DavidCary (discuss •contribs)01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
CommentEnglish-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)
Done —Kittycataclysm (discuss •contribs)23:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep the translations for languages that have an article on the English Wikipedia, i.e. Guosa, Idiom Neutral, Ido, Interlingua, Lingwa de Planeta, Negerhollands, Neo, Novial, Occidental, Romanica, Solresol, Toki Pona, and Volapük.
Delete and move toUser:Mithridates/SJ the rest of the translations, i.e. Audià/Audian, Cristianés, Ekumenski, Germanisch, Interocidental, Lingaust, Lingue Simple, Masa Tang, Mirad, Monav, Monkel, Mundeze, Nordien, Novlingue, Numo, Proyo, and Scuian/Meteza. If you can find reliable sources for those languages, please let me know.
Request withdrawn.JJPMaster (she/they)15:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
talk03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
