Wikibooks: Votes for deletion/Archive 1

You are invited to participate in research that aims to explore the motivations among Wikibookians' participation.
To take the survey, use motivations as your username and wikiproject as your password. The study has been approved by UniSA Human Ethics.
Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Archive 1

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Simply cut resolved sections from the main VfD page, then paste them at the top of the list below. These should never include candidates for speedy deletion, unless they subsequently underwent a full vote.



The Ultimate Trivia Book

This book is not a textbook, and never will be a textbook. Also, this book is in a very poor condition, and is badly in need of editing, if the general concensus is to transwiki. This book is in violation of policy, and probably should be a speedy delete, but i wanted to list it here to double-check myself. --Whiteknight TCE 03:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Useless Information. Which policy is it violating, how is it a speedy delete candidate? Wikibooks:Deletion policy says that In general, keep modules that need heavy editing... --Kernigh 21:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Speedy delete. Violates WB:WIW. Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia for trivia. A Wikibook might have a trivia section, just as it might have a glossary, but only as a larger work. As an exclusion on WB:WIW, page is eligible for speedy deletion. --Kernigh 21:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • For the same rationale as given above for Useless Information, delete. Uncle G 12:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • del. not a textbook. Mikkalai 18:26, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. We gave it sufficient time. It was not a textbook. This discussion will be archived in one week. --Whiteknight TCE 06:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

How to Crack Windows XP Passwords

Again, illegal material. Wikibooks has a noted history of deleting pages that promote illegal activity. Even if this isnt completely illegal, this page currently is not a book, nor does it have enough direction and scope to become a book. Also, the page doesnt even really describe how to crack the password, it only points the reader to a website that does it for you. It is therefore not teaching a subject, can hardly be considered a textbook, and should be deleted anyway. --Whiteknight TCE 15:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: This isn't illegal material at all. Ever take into consideration that you may perhaps need your own password which was changed as the result of a hacking attempt on you? Say your system is corrupted, and your login password has been scrambled (trust me, I've had this happen). Wouldn't you like to be able to see what the password is so you can at least change it back to what it originally was? This isn't illegal material. What the reader chooses to do, using this material, however, may be illegal. But this article wasn't written in hopes of inspiring hacking attacks. -D14BL0
  • Delete. I second Whitenight's comments. Surely there are a million and one more worthwhile 'books' to start compiling here on Wikibooks! David Kernow 16:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I disagree that this information is strictly to promote illegal activity. Indeed quite difficult to do that at all, as in order to get at this information and do this "hack" you have to have physical access to the computer instead of merely network access. I have actually heard technicians suggest that if this situation occurs where you have to get into a computer when you have forgotten the password, that it would be better to simply reformat the hard drive and reinstall the operating system. This "hack" allows you to get back into the computer instead, which would be an entirely legal activity. If the computer isn't behind a locked door or in a secure area, why would anything be on that computer that is sensitive or confidential anyway? There would be many other security issues to deal with besides being able to hack at a PC and get access to administrator accounts, and even this hack can be defeated if you know anything about computer security and don't want somebody messing with your PC. As far as other worthwhile books, fine, write them. I'm not stopping you. Don't click on this web page and you will never have to read about hacking into Windows XP again. It takes up so little server space that it isn't worth the bother of deleting, which will still keep the content on the server anyway.
    As far as being something worth teaching, this would be an excellent module for a PC Technicians' toolkit Wikibook. Having a bunch of techniques to help examine the contents of the computer and help fix problems and diagnose conditions on a PC would have incredible value. Certainly this module could use some cleaning up, but so do most Wikibook modules. --Rob Horning 17:31, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
    • But that doesnt change the fact that this book doesnt actually provide information on how to crack the password, it only points the user to a webpage that does it for you. If nothing else, the current incarnation of this page is simply a shameless plug to a webpage that can break passwords. The policy discussion, specifically discussion around the Reverse Engineering book focused alot of attention on books that offer specific exploits to security problems, and the general concensus was that books that offer specific exploits should not be permitted. This book offers such specific information on a particular security exploit, and i think therefore that it qualifies for deletion. A majority of the information (minus the website plug) could probably be merged into the security section of the Reverse Engineering book, but that might still violate policy. --Whiteknight TCE 17:52, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Do you think that if I put registration keys up, that people would just use them to recover their programs? No! They'll use it to unlock the trial versions. Until this world contains people without bad intentions, I say delete!
      • As far as the website plug is concerned, that is an issue that needs to be dealt with as part of a clean up campaign. The basic algorithm can be adapted, and even put into Wikibooks directly without the web reference. As far as general concensus that specific exploits shouldn't be discussed or describe, I hardly call the vote for that concensus to be from a widespread group of Wikibooks users. The community is still quite small here on Wikibooks, and we need to be a little flexable on general policy in that regard. Also, I fail to see how you can talk about exploits without getting into some specific details by demonstrating some specific examples. That is like trying to learn about human anatomy without actually looking at people without their clothing or being able to cut people open to examine just what the various organs of the human body really look like.--Rob Horning 15:32, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete (or possibly Expand?) for the reasons Whiteknight mentioned in his followup. I don't think the concept of breaking a password is illegal, as there are legitimate reasons to want to do so. However, the "book" in question doesn't instruct in any traditional sense or provide any depth of information. While I think a book on the Windows password system would be interesting, and potentially very entertaining, I don't think this page is that book, or is likely to become it. --Telamon 23:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep If someone presents evidence that cracking one's own password file is illegal, then I can vote Delete. If this module does not become a book, then it could be attached to Cryptography as an example. --Kernigh 03:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I am the original author of the page. I have no relations to the websites mentioned. It took me a bit of thinking to figure out how to reformat the output of the floppy disc for the cracker and it took quite a bit longer to find the cracker in the first place. I wrote down my experience to help people who may be in similar situations. It can be expanded by the various methods of obtaining the hashes and the various methods of cracking them. WP 05:24, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge I can only see keeping this page if it gets merged into an existing book, and does not attempt to stand alone as a book fitnessed for breaking a particular password scheme. I recommend that it either be included in the Cryptography book (as a side note on how windows passwords are stored), or in the Reverse Engineering book, as an example of how to reverse engineer and circumvent a password-protected system. If the over-all concensus is to merge, i will start working on this immediately. --Whiteknight TCE 14:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nomination. I agree with User:Whiteknight, cracking passwords are illegal, and this article doesn't belong in Wikibooks. --FlyingPenguins 05:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep because despite the ignorance or prejudice of others, cracking passwords is not illegal. I have had the need to crack quite a few of my old passwords which I'd forgotten, and also crack passwords on servers because the only one who knew the password left the company. As stated before, however, the page in and of itself is not a "book" and should be combined with other security information. Also perhaps include a disclaimer about the actions that would be construed as "illegal", such as accessing a system to which you do not have authorization.
  • Merge I think the information on it is fine and belongs on wikibooks, but this does not meet the length requirements for a book. It ought to be merged into either a security or Windows book. --Gabe Sechan 23:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I believe this knowledge should not be hidden, it shows a weakness that any SysAdmin should know. Tom Maioli 15:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but modify:this page is exposing vulnerabilities of a system,and the autor mabe doesn't know how to get rid of theses why not modyfying it in order to tell people that solutions exist and give them the right one
  • Merge A lot of the claims against this are really, in my opinion, bull. It has been stated repeatedly that it is NOT illegal in any sense to recover passwords on computers you own, and that this information could be useful in helping you recover a forgotten password. People seem to refuse to listen. Yes, this password could be used for illegal purposes, but so could instructions for making fire. Should we delete all information on that based on the idea that some people could use it for arson? Or even based on some unfounded proposition that "most" people who want to know how to make a fire will use that knowledge for bad means? No, of course not. This is potentially useful knowledge, and is not of a personal or illegal nature at all. Although it can be potentially used for illegal means, that does not matter. Furthermore, although this is certainly more the size of a wikipedia article, and could not constitute as a 'book', it most certainly is useful, educational, important information.
    As to those people who are against keeping solely because it tells the user to make use of external resources, such as other websites: BFD, it tells a user to use a website as a tool to getting something done. Big deal. That doesn't change the fact that the information is extremely useful, it could mean the difference between recovering your files and losing them. Ideally, it would explain how the reverse-hashing process works, and explain the theory of how to attain the SAM file, so dependence on a foreign program would not be necessary. But even if it doesn't right now, that doesn't matter, it still fulfills the educational needs of the user reading it. It does describe "how to crack a password", white knight, just because it doesn't do it in the way you'd like doesn't mean it should be deleted. It should be expanded to be more informative and explanatory, but it still does the job. 22:22, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • i have 2 critisism on this page:
    • not neutral=> need to tell people what to do against this treat
    • too specific=>must be integrated in a bigger book about computer or windows security
  • but this could become a great initiative over computer security by the way i do not use anymore windows and i have some old install and so cracking(i've a better solution=>change the password(faster) with the same method and an ntfs driver) my old and forgotten password can be usefull(so i didn't crypt all my hd...) and there could also be forgotten after a long hollyday...
  • Keep Security through Obscurity is widely argued to be an inadequate means of protection. Fostering this paradigm is of little aid to the developers of products which run on Windows XP.
In fact, open source software (such as Linux) tends to be more secure that others (such MS Windows), because security holes can be proactively addressed. (Note that when Microsoft patches a security vulnerability in their software, in most cases, that flaw has existed since release. Flaws in an open source system can be addressed before vulnerability is discovered or “proof of concept” is exploited with malicious intent. I did not know of the importance of passwords greater than 14 characters. This article has been of use to me and I will be updating my XP password.
  • Keep. Useful information. Not illegal. 01:02, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is useful. Nuking your own password is not illegal at all. As for implications of this information... Freedom means to accept everything, no matter how unpopular or distasteful to you. Keep 08:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Of course it's not illegal, but does that make it worthwhile? The kid doesn't even discuss how to crack the password, just where to go to get it done and the internet is already overflowing with info like that. If it was an intellectual teaching of encryption and decryption, using the flaws in Windows security to illustrate, you could appreciate it, but as it stands it's nothing more than a wikification of some text file that some kid found on hotline. I say replace it with a book called "How to get a girlfriend" something far more useful than knowing where to go to crack a windows XP password.
  • Keep/Merge Not illegal and can be useful. Probably should be merged somewhere.Juliusross 12:39, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Do you think that if I put registration keys up, that people would just use them to recover their programs? No! They'll use it to unlock the trial versions. Until this world contains people without bad intentions, I say delete!
  • Keep Despite the fear-mongering, the information is useful and the process itself is not illegal. Until this world contains people that won't murder, let's lock everyone in solitary jail cells? Ridiculous. 18:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. —Brim 01:36, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Sake of science and for experimental purposes. Deleting this would be like having someone post a book on how to use john the ripper and someone saying delete it because of illegality. Simply because it could be used for illegal activity doesn't mean it will be, many people enjoy learning this information for the sake of knowing it. - 02:21, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I installed XP months ago and didn't care much about security so I just typed asakfj as an administrator password. I also had myself as a user with admin privledges. Today I was playing around with the settings on my user account. I changed my account type to a standard user without realizing what that meant. After I reboot my computer I couldn't install or remove programs because I no longer had admin rights. Since I had no idea what I used for the administrator I couldn't even go into safe mode. I was pulling out all my setup disks and drivers getting ready to sit in front of my computer for hours watching it reinstall everything when I found this article. Whether you think it is "hacking" or "cracking" I still think it is important for public information so that people don't have a false sense of security by thinking their data is untouchable if they use an administrator account. Please Keep it! Thanks
  • Keep Nothing is lost by keeping this. And deleting takes extra work.
  • Keep An anti-virus software might not get installed if the user doesn't have admin privelages. Virus time-bombs might activate before they can be deleted if that user doesn't have admin privelages. Better safe than sorry.
  • Keep Interesting and useful on some occasions. Anyway, hiding security holes is never the right solution.
COMMENT There are quite a few anon votes here. I have a list of the anon IPs and how they voted in case the closing Admin wants them. And how long is this thing going to stay open anyways? --LV (Dark Mark) 16:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)I think the general concensus is to Keep this book, although it cannot stand alone as a module itself, and needs to be merged into another book. I recommend either the Cryptography book, or a "Using Windows", and efforts are in progress now to make those merges happen. --Whiteknight TCE 17:08, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Well, actually from my count (discounting anons) I see 6 keeps, 4 deletes, and 3 merges (some votes are counted twice: delete or merge type votes). So really there is no consensus, so default to keep. So let's close this thing and get it off this page. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:20, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Keep Deleting this article will take more time to do. It's a lot of work to accomplish. I feel that if you delete the 'Windows' article, you'll regret it. --LucilleBall T CE 22:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
Since the general concensus was to Keep, I've moved the page to Reverse Engineering for now. The above link is now a redirect. This action is easily reversed, and the page can be moved to any future Wikibook as well. This is just to give a home at the moment. This discussion will be archived in one week. --Rob Horning 17:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Useless Information

Some of this stuff is patently ridiculous. If someone wants to write a book about urban myths, fine, but don't call them 'facts.'
This isn't a book, and frankly i doubt that half of the "information" here is factually correct. --Whiteknight TCE 15:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Well at least I found it interesting , and with some more time it would make a full fledged book. Nobody should dare to remove it.-- 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)-- 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep with a bit of organisation this book has potential to be a "usefull" collection of "useless" information. Klingoncowboy4 21:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm with the guy above. This book has a lot of potential (if we can ensure factual information). Sykil 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Just corrected the elbow comment, it is quite possible to lick your own elbow! Just very rare!
  • Keep Just needs some development Tom Maioli 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I fail to see how a meer list of facts, especially facts with no common bond besides the authors considering them "useless", can count as a book! There is no standard for determining what information is useless, and what is useful. Also, there isnt a single "fact" listed on that page that a)doesnt belong better in another book, or b) isnt completely false. the fact about the elephant jumping belongs in an elephant book. The "fact" about licking your own elbow belongs in a human physiology book (if it doesnt belong in the garbage can). A "list of information", regardless of qualifiers used, belongs in wikipedia before it belongs in wikibooks. --Whiteknight TCE 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Whitenknight - there are many real world books like this that get sold - especially at Christmas. Just go into any bookstore and you'll find many like this. The reason they sell ? Who knows, I personally suspect that it's because they don't require any effort to pick up and put down. Perfect material for the toliet library. Personally I found the page rather nice and entertaining. Finding some pictures to go with the existing text would make quite a fun, if useless book. Books I own which are similar:
    • The Dalek survival guide - at the end of the day utterly useless
    • You May Not Tie an Alligator to a Fire Hydrant: And Other Really Dumb Laws Both of these books are full of useless "facts" of dubious status. The latter book is especially similar. Maybe those books aren't worthy of "book" status in your opinion, but the fact they sell and sell well implies that many people like this kind of book, so why not keep ?
  • DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!You might call this USELESS junk, u could actually save this goody to somewhere better.
  • Possibly merge with The Ultimate Trivia Book. Else, I think delete unless it can be reliable. Gflores 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. The title 'useless' refers to the fact that this information is insufficient to aid you in your career, or something similar. And yes, the only common thing to these facts is that they are 'useless' (in this sense of the word). But wouldn't that be enough to make them into a real book, and hence enough to make them into wikibook?
  • Keep. It's already been mentioned that bookshops are full of books like this. Because it's not your taste in literature isn't justification for throwing out. Personally speaking, I find it 10 times more interesting than some spotty faced teenager's Yet Another Guide to Hacking, which will invariably attract strong support. Again, as already mentioned, this is classic WC Literature. What I would say however, is that it quite obviously needs work. As I see it, it's currently an inspiration to what could be a fun read. Once the list has grown a bit you can start sorting it out. E.g. Sorting facts from urban legend. Perhaps backing up claims (especially the more dubious and less believable) with links to more detailed info might help to add credibility – or at least round the thing off a bit.
  • Merge with The Ultimate Trivia Book. Interesting, but I'm not too sure there's a need for another book when we have that one. Jaxl 02:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The general concensus so far is to keep this book, although in light of recent discussions, I think this ruling needs to be either revisted, or completely overturned. According to Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, wikibooks is a site for textbooks, manuals, and instructional materials. Nowhere is wikibooks labled as being a "repository for nonsense, bullshit, lists, factoids, or jokes." In fact, Currently enforced policy specifically says that pages such as Useless Information are specifically forbidden. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the book is against policy, and is therefore a candidate for speedy delete, and not even really open to a VfD discussion. I recommend that anybody who wants to reply to this message should read Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks, and brush up on current policy. --Whiteknight TCE 03:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
  • The arguments to keep basically boil down to "It's a book.". That's insufficient for Wikibooks. Wikibooks' remit covers only certain types of books. Wikibooks is not the place for for works of fiction, for example, nor is it the place for for the first publication of original ideas. Wikibooks modules are not dictionaries, that being Wiktionary's job, nor books of quotations, that being Wikiquote's job, nor copies of free published texts, that being Wikisource's job. And, important to this discussion, Wikibooks modules are not encyclopaedias. That's exactly what this book is: It's an an encyclopaedia of minor facts, collected solely for their entertainment value. Wikibooks is not the place for writing an encyclopaedia. The point about "toilet library" also requires addressing. Wikibooks' remit covers the books that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of a university bookshop. (Indeed, one could think of Wikibooks as "Wikiversity's free bookshop".) One would expect to find CliffsNotes such as Angels and Demons and the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter in the English Literature non-fiction section of such a bookshop. One would expect to find reference books such as the Guide to UNIX in the Computing non-fiction section of such a bookshop. One would expect to find the Cookbook in the Catering non-fiction section of such a bookshop. One would expect to find works ranging from car manuals in an Automotive Engineering section to books of practical experiments in a Science Education section. However, one would expect to find "toilet reading" in the Humour section. It is entertainment, not instruction or education.
    Finally: Any book that labels its content as "useless" is pretty much declaring itself outright to fall outside of the "instructional and educational" remit of Wikibooks. Delete. Uncle G 12:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would vote Keep (I have no problems with the accuracy of the information) but then I remembered WB:WIW: Wikibooks is not a macropedia. A book that only collects random facts is not an instructional book. See also my Delete vote for the Ultimate Trivia book, farther down on this page. --Kernigh 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is not a textbook. Mikkalai 18:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. This book was against policy. We had the warning up for a sufficient time, and hopefully the authors saved the information if it was worth keeping (which i doubt). I will archive this discussion in a week. --Whiteknight TCE 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Cyclic Multiverse Theory

This book is original research copied from the Wikipedia article of the same name, which is up for deletion there. Delete. Andrewmackinnon 15:38, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Original Research has never been allowed on Wikibooks and has been used in the past as a justification for deletion. There has perhaps been a "cleanup" of Wikibooks policies that doesn't make it currently a codified enforced policy, except perhaps in this module. The old "What Wikibooks is Not" page spelled this out much more clearly, but has since been heavily reworked. --Rob Horning 23:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Andrewmacinnon, you should put {{vfd}} at the top of the page or book that you want to delete. Because you did not, I went and added one. It puts a message that the book/chapter/module might be deleted. Wikibooks:Deletion policy explains it. --Kernigh 16:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • --Kmarinas86 17:22, 22 October 2005 (UTC)Now it's clear to me that no Original Research is acceptable. I see now. I wasn't told that before I came to Wikipedia.
    • I appreciate new ideas, and this is an interesting one, but the "No Original Research" concept is mainly to act as a protection for us here. We are trying to become a forum for textbook writing, not a publishing area for scientific research or hypothesis. There have been proposals for a new sister project to organize these efforts, and there have been a couple of different projects at Wikicities, including The Academic Publishing Wiki. That particular web site is more along the lines of what you are trying to accomplish. I hope that this content does end up on that wiki. --Rob Horning 00:24, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete --Kernigh 03:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete This page is original research, which is against policy. The auther should be given a final opportunity to transwiki, if desired, and then it should be deleted. I personally will give it 2 more days. --Whiteknight TCE 03:54, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I put up a notice on the page that it will be deleted within 1 week, as per the concensus here. --Whiteknight TCE 18:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Mikkalai 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Maybe keep as Devil's advocate. Does anyone here actually know if this matertial all exists in journal articles? NOR should apply only when the work does not yet exist in journal articles. NOR should be not appled merely because the author of the journal articles is the main contributor. In this case, we are far our on the fringe of theoretical physics, which runs the risk of self-aggrandizement, but I see nothing wrong with having a whole book on Theories of the Universe, or even just the fringe ones. So, this content can be on wikibooks, but its POV to host it alone without competing fringe theoreis. Anyway, my point is that this article is really violating NPOV, probably not NOR. BTW, Speedy deletion is for vandalism, clear personal aggrandizement, etc. and almost invariably inappropriate for the NOR rule; just make sure the author can get it transwiki'd. - 10:28, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
Original Research is not against Wikibooks policy... yet. --LV (Dark Mark) 15:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Lord Voldemort is right. Every textbook has original research. Without original research and bias by the authors, a textbook would be nothing more than an extensive encyclopedia article. The advantage of Wikibooks over conventional textbooks is that we can all add our own bias to the information, hopefully balancing the content to make it universally equitable. The problem we run into with the Cyclic Multiverse Theory is that nobody else knows anything about it and hence, cannot help edit the book. Since there can be no balancing bias added, the book will always be the POV of user:Kmarinas86. If we want to attract quality authors to Wikibooks and keep the ones we have, we must be honest about our reasons for proposing a book deletion. Nobody is going to contribute to Wikibooks if they think the rules are up in the air—if they think their book could disappear at any time no matter how hard they try to follow Wikibook standards. The truth is that Wikibooks is a community project and as such, all books must be open to editing by the community. It necessarily follows that the content of all books must be consensual to the community. As per the definition of consensus, that has nothing to do with a vote or any type of majority opinion, but with our tolerance level. The bottom line is that all content at Wikibooks must be within the threshold of what all editors will tolerate. We deleted the resource book for white supremacists, for example, only because we could not tolerate the content. We blamed it on other factors, but we all know that our excuses were bullshit. We simply didn't want that sort of content associated with our Internet community. We have to be honest about tolerance level defining content because that is what's happening at Wikibooks—it's our unofficial policy. If there are problems with the policy, we have to change it, not pretend it doesn't exist. --Zephram Stark 17:54, 22 November 2005 (UTC) There's a difference between research and original research. If I write a book about phyiscs and need to look up Maxwell's equations, thats research. But its not original research. If, on the other hand, I claim that Maxwell is wrong and write a book about why, thats primary research. I'm doing investigation into new facts and posting my theories on them. The problem with this on wikibooks is that its not verifiable- we have neither the ability to or the expertise needed to test physics theories. We end up with a bunch of books, 90% of which are utterly wrong, that noone can verify the contents of. That hamstrings our mission- if half the books cannot be verified, we as a site cannot be trusted. Hence, no original research. It has nothing to do with the content not being tolerated, it has to do with it not being verifiable. And it definitely has nothing to do with the white power book and the reasons why it was delete.--Gabe Sechan 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC) I have never seen a textbook, Wikibook or otherwise, that was free of primary research and bias by the author. The very act of tying two ideas together in a textbook is original research and POV. Who's to say that those two ideas have anything to do with each other? What source was cited for the idea that those two things belong in the same textbook? I could open any textbook here and point out research that can be found no place else on Earth. If I were to assert that pine trees are generally taller than pear trees, I would never be able to find a source for that, so does that mean I can't say it? Of course I could say it, but only because enough people know the relative sizes of pine and pear trees. It has nothing to do with it being original research. The issue comes down to how accessible the book is for others to edit. If we're only talking about stuff that's in the original author's head, nobody else can edit the book. Thus, the responsibility befalls the original author to make the Wikibook he started inviting for other authors to edit. This is how the policy is being implemented, so it might as well be stated that way too. --Zephram Stark 23:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Umm, original research has always been against policy. Its a specific exclusion in What is Wikibooks, and has been since well before I made my first edit here. --Gabe Sechan 18:16, 22 November 2005 (UTC) Actually, it just says that No original research is allowed, but does not qualify that statement by stating what constitutes "original research". I have started trying to make a NOR policy page and it is located here. --LV (Dark Mark) 18:49, 22 November 2005 (UTC) So long as your allowed to write about your own work *after* a real journal has printed the papers. - 22:34, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


While a gardening book would be nice, this one isn't it. It's about 100 years old, and it shows. You're instructed to use deadly poisons like arsenic and lead even! It covers two areas, the north (approximately New England and New York) and the south (approximately the US east coast, excluding the "north" and Florida). The tools are absurd. Horses??? Worst of all, the book has a wiki-hostile structure that discourages editing. The book feels closed and complete, probably because it is. It feels weird to edit this finished and historical work. Note: I think I might start a new book on this topic, but this one is in the way. AlbertCahalan 01:14, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. A lot of people like the idea of building on an existing work and that works fine for almost unchanging topics (e.g. World War II), but this book is far too out of date to rescue. It's a shame, a lot of work has been spent posting it. GarrettTalk 11:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Trans-wiki to Wikisource If this is indeed a copy of a historical book, this is something that is clearly what was intended for Wikisource. There are many books there, like the 1911 Encyclopedia Britainica, that are very dated in the material but still of incredible value as a historical reference. I think this book is very similar. To "update" a book like this and bring it into the 21st Century would be a worthy task, but that is part of another issue. In that regard I would have to agree with Garrett and strongly suggest simply starting a new book from scratch, but perhaps using this book moved to Wikisource as a reference.--Rob Horning 14:33, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Project Gutenberg maintains the book here. AlbertCahalan 15:35, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • This book has already been changed; it is no longer the same as the source text and cannot be transwikied and treated as if it is. GarrettTalk 15:55, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge and transwiki as follows: (1) Create the new gardening book. (2) Merge the Wikibooks additions from the old book to the new book. (3) Revert the old book to the source (Gutenberg) text. (4) Transwiki the source text to Wikisource. Steps 2 through 4 can wait until someone wants to do them. --Kernigh 00:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Preparation for transwiki is in progress. Help separate contributions from Bailey's original text so Transwiki to Wikisource is possible... visit Wikibooks:Pages to be transwikied/Gardening. --Kernigh 01:44, 20 November 2005 (UTC)


It's not really a relevant subcategory of Japanese and contains no real content, regardless. While I think a book dealing with "Japanese for Science-Fiction and Fantasy" would be both awesome and fun, this isn't it and doesn't look like it's going to be.
  • Delete. I agree. This section really has no place in the Japanese wikibook. I've actually thought of bringing it to VfD, myself. Also, there are likely copyright issues with with copying the original game text verbatim. This category and it's related pages should be deleted. - Sik0fewl 02:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Not an instructional resource. But, man, this would be a great wikicity! MShonle 04:02, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
    • The problem is the original contributor seems to be gone, so we'd need somebody to volunteer to move it to wikicities (and no, I'm not volunteering :) - Sik0fewl 05:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation? The Walkthrough Guides would violate the copyrights of the video games for which it has transcripts. However, the current collection is so small that it might actually be fair use. --Kernigh 03:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, but I don't think that it's a very good solution to let it stay around until it becomes a copyright violation. - Sik0fewl 22:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
      • GameFAQs has a fudgeload of complete transcripts, how do they deal with the legality of it? Then again I suppose they're not releasing their dumps on a site that defaults to the GFDL... GarrettTalk 01:40, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - There is no {{vfd}} tag on the page so we cannot delete it. --Kernigh 23:03, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I added the {{vfd}} tag on 21 October 2005. I am also voting Delete, but we need to first wait for responses after 21 October. In addition to the vfd notice, I posted to the talk pages for User:Gmcfoley and User:Mkn because they appear to be the main contributors who have user accounts. I might change this vote to Keep if someone changes Japanese:Videogame and its subpages to be something useful, instead of just gathering non-GFDL transcripts. --Kernigh 15:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep now that some non-transcript material is being added, but maybe put {{copyvio}} (Template:copyvio) or fair-use assertions on the transcript pages. Also, we might want to make it a separate book instead of a chapter in Japanese. --Kernigh 23:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I have just been informed that some of the stuff I wrote is up for deletion. I only new here so I don't know how things are done, especially in regard to copyright. The pages here probably are only going to be a gathering non-GFDL transcripts. If this is a problem then the pages probably should be deleted. I didn't create this section, only added to it, so I don't care either way. Gmcfoley 15:59, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Developing A Universal Religion

While this really is well written and thought out, unfortunately this doesn't really fit in with what Wikibooks is all about. If we decide on a delete, the author should be allowed to transfer content. Serge 10:27, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Actually, I've since read the author's user page, and it appears this content comes from a paper book he wrote anyway. So content transfer might not even be a problem. Serge 10:30, September 11, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - This is indeed a well written book, at least as far as something covering the subject is concerned. If we allow a theology bookshelf to be started, I would imagine that there would be several Wikibooks that would be written along these lines, which is why my first impression is to keep and allow stuff like this. If this turns out to be simply somebody who has already published a book or e-book elsewhere and just wants to dump it onto Wikibooks, I would be much less inclined to keep it. In terms of something that could be used in a theology "class" at Wikiversity, this would make for some very interesting discussions. --Rob Horning 05:14, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately this book is (while, I'll say it again, well written), it represents very much the individual opinion of the author. I am strongly of the opinion that this sort of thing should be welcomed at a future Wikiversity project, however, it probably doesn't belong on our website due to its being an opinion rather than an instructional resource. Serge 08:47, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - Yes, both of you, Serge and Rob, have hit the nail on the head. I wanted to offer a fact-giving text (see Parts One, Two and Three), in a way that is not over-done (other books in Wikibooks will do a much better job of this), but offer a text that might promote discussion. If there is another place to provide such a thing, that would be great! : David H 16:05, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
  • (Sorry, Serge, I fought long and hard against offering opinions when writing the book, but in the end I had to, simply to show how the ideas being discussed might be practically applied. But I do say in several places that my suggestions are only examples—that others have to do the "real" work! And, thanks, Rob and Serge, for saying it’s well written. David.)
  • Even if an individual's opinion is predominantly the content, this subject deserves a wiki exposure. In the absence of a universal religion, you have various religious factions, and we all know what such factions can bring about in this world.
  • Delete - Just by being developing a universal religion, this is primary research. And its impossible to NPOV in any way- what belongs in a universal religion, or even if any religion is a good thing to have (can you tell what side of that I'm on?), is purely a matter of opinion. An instructional book describing or comparing religions is one thing, but this seems to violate several wikibooks policies.--Gabe Sechan 21:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource if it is indeed merely an electronic version of a published paper book. - Aya T E C 18:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Perhaps paper-or-no it would be a good idea to put already completed books (not created on wikibooks) on to wikisource. For example, Programming:The way of the program was a GFDL book already written that was brought over to here. But if the changes we make aren't significant, it might be in everyone's best interests to just leave it unedited at wikisource. When there are plans and ideas for a way to change the book significantly, then it could be brought over the wikibooks for editing. --MShonle 21:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Copyright violation? Would we {{copyvio}} this book and the other three parts (Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose)? I have decided not to add the Template:copyvio unless someone else wants it.
  • "Developing a Universal Religion" appears to be a published book. Look at this page on The text of the book is searchable, suggesting the book being sold is very similar to the one here on Wikibooks. It is still possible to print and sell a GFDL book, though, and the author can use any license.
  • Apart from someone creating a wiki account called User:David Hockey, there seems to be no evidence that the author actually licensed it as GFDL. In fact, this page on suggests that the someone is actually trying to sell foreign publishing and translation rights; the GFDL grants such things freely.
Unfortunately, I have not learned anything about Stephenson-Hockey Publishing other than that they published this one book, so this case is hard to know. --Kernigh 03:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. After reading the comments, it does not seem that there is any obstacle to keeping this book (unless David H wants to move it to Wikisource). --Kernigh 23:14, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment I am David Hockey, the author of this book. I have been away and have not read this discussion until today, sorry. I sent the book to Wikibooks because I thought that it contained enough facts to be useful to those searching religions, and maybe interesting to those trying to understand why we have religions. (I am also sure that the book could be improved by edits!)
    I started and ran Stephenson-Hockey Publishing to sell the book, but dropped the endeavour when I moved to Kingston (Ontario). During that time I joined PMA (the Independent Book Publishers Association) and asked them to try to sell Foreign Rights to the book. They have not done so. Does this stop me from giving Wikibooks the material? If so, I'll write PMA and ask them to stop offering the rights. At the moment, I am the only one who owns them. (Plus, via Wikibooks, everyone else?) I kept the site going, and sell copies of the book through them, Quality Books, Baker & Taylor, etc.
    I did not state that the book could be bought because Wikibooks' should not do that, I think. David H 11:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll put a note on your user talk page as well, but I want to note that generally speaking, if you are the author and have full copyright to some material, it would not be automatically considered for deletion because it has been published elsewhere. There is a "sister" project that deals with source materials that have been previously published called Wikisource where republishing material that you are willing to license under the GNU Free Document License would be permitted. This distinction is because on Wikisource the goal is to make a copy as close to the original as we can (dynamic with web pages permitting and other limitations due to the medium) and generally speaking it is not available for editing. On Wikibooks, however, by you posting it here you are asking for collabortive editing and people to add/change the content of what you are writing. If that is what you are asking for, it would be a good idea to put a comment to that effect on the module discussion pages and suggest areas that new contributors can help to improve or extend an existing book. Another issue you have to deal with regarding previously published material is that often you may not be legally able to grant the GFDL license, especially to an international project like Wikibooks. We have servers in several countries now, so technically you can't sell "international distribution rights" once you have published here on Wikibooks. I don't know specifics of any contract you may have signed, so this is something you need to consult an attorney about, especially an attorney who specializes in copyright law and hopefully one who understands the GFDL...quite rare at the moment. Depending on what publishing rights you may have already signed away, you may or may not even be able to publish the material on Wikibooks.
      You couldn't sell exclusive international distribution rights very well. Problems would occur if you agreed that you would not compete with the buyer. If the buyer is aware and accepts this though, I don't think there is a problem. AlbertCahalan 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The original research restriction is a more universal issue that is more a safeguard here with Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects to avoid controversial topics and somebody who wants to turn these projects into a personal political platform. That is also the reason for the Neutral Point of View standard (usually written NPOV in discussions) to try and "report just the facts". These two standards are subject to interpretation, and is usually the justification used to remove content from projects like Wikibooks. We here at Wikibooks are trying (sometime unsuccessfully) to avoid becoming a "vanity press" and instead want to raise the standards of the content here to make these Wikibooks something that people are seeking after. Wikibooks follows similar policies to Wikipedia, but here we try to encourage more depth to the subjects, which is why most Wikibooks contain multiple modules (seperate web pages) and quite a bit more structure. I also think knee jerk reactions to theological discussions should also be avoided. You can have a NPOV discussion about a theological concept like Universal Religion. By publishing here on Wikibooks, you should be prepared for other people to poke at what you have written, and perhaps even do major revisions of anything you have put down in these discussions. That can be a little harsh at time, so you have to develop a little bit of thick skin when you see stuff that you have worked so hard on get changed, or when you get criticized for misspellings or even sloppy writing styles. The original research objections can be overcome, but you need to provide independent sources for where you are gathering material for a discussion. Theology in particular has thousands of potential sources for just about any topic, so this shouldn't be hard regardless of what you are talking about. Again, don't get thin skined, and know that by trying to overcome these objections you are going to have a better written document in the long run as a result. Welcome these criticisms and you may find that instead of struggling to find a place to publish the book that instead people will be seeking more from you as an author.
    Whatever you do with this Wikibook, welcome to this project and I hope that you continue to help out here and add content and suggestions to other projects and books here. --Rob Horning 16:27, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rob: (This first paragraph copies part of what I wrote in My Talk page because I read that before reading this.) I do understand that anyone can edit and change what I have written. I very much like this idea and hope that editing can improve what has been written. I don’t even mind if the consensus is to completely change the book’s focus: if that is what people of the world think is best, then it is OK with me.
    I haven’t sold any publication or translation rights, although I did ask PMA to try to sell them for me. They haven’t done this. I will write to them to tell them to stop advertising that they are for sale, simply because I think that Wikibooks (or one of its colleagues) is a better place for the text to be. If there is something that I should do to ensure that GFDL requirements have been met, please let me know what to do. I thought that simply submitting writings (that are one’s own) automatically granted free use (provided that no rights have been released/sold to anyone else). David H 15:21, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
    • It's automatic if you have the right to do so. As the copyright holder, you always have this unless you have agreed with someone else that you won't. Even in that case, you might still have the right... but expose yourself to damages as a result of destroying the value of that agreement. (see a lawyer if you worry enough) AlbertCahalan 21:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Thanks, Albert. I have not sold or given anyone any rights. David H 12:42, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I am changing my "vote" on this subject from neutral to keep, because I feel the "Original Research" issues are dealt with at least as fairly as can be with a subject of this nature. There are formal footnotes and references to other sources that have at least some academic credibility. It should also be noted that this is really only one part or one volume of a much larger work. Clearly there is some additional work to clarify things like the footnotes and internal links between different sections, but that can be dealt with over time. This is a new contributor "experiment" and IMHO part of what Wikibooks is trying to encourage. This is a philosophy book, and that can be tricky to work with, I know. By rejecting this Wikibook, we will have to come up with a strong policy statement that will have to reject just about any philosophical book of any kind. Are we prepared as a community to do that? --Rob Horning 14:38, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I vote to Keep the book and note what we learned from the discussion:
    • In the future, we merely have to establish that the granter of the GFDL is the copyright holder to avoid any confusion on issue of copyrights. As AlbertCahalan mentioned above, the copyright holder always has the right to release the book under the GFDL, regardless of other commitments. Other commitments are entirely the author's business and legally have nothing to do with Wikibooks.
    • On the issue of POV, I'm sure we can agree that a book will always be influenced by the POV of the author. The advantage of opening the book to unrestricted editing is that the POVs of multiple authors can proof and neutralize each other. POV in a book is a great reason to edit it, but if we deleted books that had POV at any time in their existence, Wikibooks would be devoid of content. --Zephram Stark 21:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
mabe i'm in a the wrong section keep saying that this book will be transfered...but where
i've not read the book but i think that i've catched the spirit of it
mabe the autor wrote this book on order to change the world and make it better and so this is not a didactic book
i'm very interested because mabe one day i'll write a book about politic and economic theory that can made the world better and asking where such a (wiki)book could be hosted i'll avoid the deletion process
  • Keep The keep comments above are much more compelling than the delete ones. :) - Nyarlathotep 17:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Looks like a real book to me. Should be kept for all sorts of reasons including the novelty of having a complete book with, summaries, endnotes and references. I wish I were conscientious enough to turn the Visual Basic Classic book into something a tenth as thorough. --kwhitefoot 19:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Savoir-faire was transwikied from Wikipedia. The page is a "portal" aimed at achieving certain political and social goals. It would be counted as both an original research project and something far too broad to be a single book. (Do we really need a book to teach people: how to start fires, to fish, and "all other human need"?) MShonle 04:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, a half-hearted translation from a French project, and it's not a book, or at least not a book with a definable goal. Should be OK for wikicities though, but since there's no real content a transwiki is unnecessary. GarrettTalk 03:05, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It was a portal on Wikipedia. That doesn't mean that we have to use it as originally intended. Here it's clearly a bookshelf. (The discussion in the Staff lounge completely misses the fact that not everything need be a book.) It has content that could be usefully merged into the actual Wikibooks:how-tos bookshelf itself. (The external links and co-ordination sections are not useful. But the classification and ideas for how-tos and layout certainly are.) I suggested exactly that at Wikibooks talk:how-tos bookshelf. Keep. Uncle G 03:27:20, 2005-08-23 (UTC)
    • But bookshelves don't need all of that artwork, titles, and self promotion. You can enhance the how-to bookshelf right now if you want, it would have nothing to do with keeping or deleting this item. MShonle 03:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Wrong. It would have everything to do with it if the content is merged as I suggested. Merger requires that edit history be preserved. Uncle G 23:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC) What steps are required to achieve what you'd like to see? --MShonle
  • Delete - It's just a page with a load of links to non-existent pages. What use is it? If Uncle G likes the layout, he can keep it for reference by moving it to a subpage of his user page (e.g. User:Uncle G/Savoir-faire) - Aya T E C 16:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Its use has already been explained above. Uncle G 23:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Combine with how-to bookshelf where appropriate and delete ... or ... create a "sub-bookshelf" of the how-to bookshelf to deal with this sort of content if the framework is considered important (think of it like a category). Kellen T 17:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Combine, as above 21:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It is correct that this page is appropriate for Wikibooks, not Wikipedia. I have no problem with the images or external links. But no one here on Wikibooks is using the page! User:Uncle G fixed a few links, but there is no one updating the page to be a Wikibooks page (it still calls itself a Wikipedia portal) or writing most of the listed stuff. Delete it. Later if someone wants to write it, they can create page with blue links. --Kernigh 04:44, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep - The reasons that I wrote above are not reasons for deletion. A stub full of red links is more than a dictionary-definition stub, thus by Wikibooks:Deletion policy we should keep it. --Kernigh 19:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Merge - I put some ideas on [[Talk:Transwiki:Savoir-faire]]. After a merge, the module would not be deleted; it would become a redirect. --Kernigh 23:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I disagree. It might be full of red links, but it is not now, and will never be a book. It's some sort of project page, filled with original work and NPOV violations. At the very least it should be dumped at wikicities. --Whiteknight TCE 02:22, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not a textbook, and is unlikely to become part of one. Juliusross 01:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete not a txtbook. Mikkalai 18:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
  • ""Merge"" to bookshelf, seems self explanitory. - Nyarlathotep 17:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)


Due to its length, this debate has been moved to Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Wikiversity.

Chinese bookshelf

This page was originally a splash page at Chinese leading to Chinese: Contents. It contained a splash image that was duplicated (and consequently self-linking) at Chinese: Contents and flags of Chinese-speaking countries/regions. In Oct 2004, User:Sped moved it to its current location and replaced all the content. In Nov 2004 added in copyrighted material.
Since then, I have copied the flags to Chinese/About_Chinese and the Chinese Wikibook has stopped using a splash page. Additionally, the bookshelf convention is listed as deprecated in Wikibooks:Naming policy. When in effect, this page acted as a confusing barrier between users and the information sought, essentially acting as a second splash page. — Everlong
  • DeleteEverlong 19:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - It looks like there are several other issues that need to be resolved with this page as well. On the whole, creating a bookshelf shouldn't be that big of a deal, but the idea of a bookshelf is that there are going to be several Wikibooks "on" the bookshelf... or at least linked from it. There are a few bookshelves that don't do a good job, or have duplicated content from elsewhere. I think it is better to "force a need" for a bookshelf, such as what happened when the IT bookshelf was broken up into the Computer Science, IT, and Computing bookshelves simply due to the huge number of Wikibooks on that one bookshelf. Otherwise, it should perhaps be moved to a sub-section of the Languages bookshelf. On the whole, this discussion shouldn't take place here on the VfD page, but rather on Talk:Main Page or better yet Talk:All bookshelves (which unfortunately does not have any discussion on it for general bookshelf organization). Once you (Everlong) have moved stuff around that doesn't belong on the Chinese bookshelf and put the proper links on the Wikibooks:Languages bookshelf to make sure nothing gets lost from this bookshelf, feel free to add {{delete|Obsolete bookshelf}} somwhere on the bookshelf to make it a speedy delete. --Rob Horning 21:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge with Languages bookshelf. —Snargle 06:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would say to make it a redirect and merge with Chinese (Mandarin), which is the strategy I used with BSD bookshelf -> Guide to UNIX/BSD, but the entire page is useless except the three Wikipedia links. If the three links must be retained, copy and paste them to Chinese (Mandarin). It is also not necessary to keep the older revisions which were cover pages. There were several edits over what flags to include, but Everlong is correct that the cover image and other flags are preserved by the current Wikibook. --Kernigh 03:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete for the reasons stated above. --Whiteknight TCE 18:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Is the general concensus then to delete? there are 3 votes to delete, no votes to keep, 1 vote to merge, and there has been no discussion on the point for over a month. --Whiteknight TCE 18:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
Deleted. There has been ample time to mount a defense for this page, but now it is gone. --Whiteknight TCE 17:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Business ideas

  • Delete - not an instructional resource. Perhaps can be moved to Wikicities. Serge 22:27, September 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- It's a fine idea and really shows creativity. However, WikiBooks cannot shoulder the burden of being everything to everyone. We're a (text)book project. MShonle 23:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and preserve somewhere. --Azertus 17:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Cleanup and reorganize - In its current form, I would have to agree that it is not a Wikibook even. It is just a collection of random thoughts and ideas. On the basis of this being "original research" (coming up with new business ideas), it might also be reasonable to delete. A book about successful business concepts and franchise opportunities, on the other hand, might be something reasonable to have here on Wikibooks. That is, I have something here that I've done, and here is how I did it. Obvious fraud like the book reader scams and some of the fly-by-night fraud concepts might go out the window (how to do a Nigerian Scam operation), but something like how to run a successful lawn care company, window cleaning service, becoming a street vendor, starting a computer software company, etc. might have some merit. There is a germ of a good idea here, and it needs to be refined quite a bit more. --Rob Horning 04:45, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Move and preserve somewhere. - Hi, I'm the guy who kicked off the Business Ideas wikibook. To be honest, it's not provoked much interest so I won't shed any tears if it's deleted. However, I do still think there is a small ember of hope in there and maybe it could moved somewhere more suitable. What is "WikiCities"? -Dan AKA Jack 16:00 25 Sept 2005 (GMT) WikiCities is a wiki hosting service for community wikis. Because Business Ideas is more of a project than a text book it would be more suited over there. You can either start your own community, or try to find an existing community that could house your module. MShonle 17:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Cool, thanks. Dan AKA Jack 19:26 25 Sept 2005 (GMT)

Study Guide:Shakespeare

The copies of Shakespeare's works must go. Wikisource is for that sort of thing, and Ws already includes all the works of Shakespeare. Snargle 22:32, 29 August 2005 (UTC)It looks like the goal is to annotate the wikisource-copied material with comments and studying suggestions. (It seems they copied it from wikisource, at least.) Annotated works are ok for Wikibooks, but it seems like something like this could be better organized. For example, in the current state it doesn't seem quite as inviting, and it should be structured to avoid it looking like a discussion board inbetween the lines of the plays. I wonder if each act could be transcluded instead, with a discussion of each act right after that. MShonle 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC) Even so, the parts without annotation should be thrown out, IMO. —Snargle Since Shakespearean lines have a set length, the other option is to transclude into a table. GarrettTalk 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Selective Delete of the non-annotated sections, they can be copied over from Wikisource when and if the need arises. GarrettTalk 03:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Selective Delete Snargle 06:20, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and put on a clean-up notice. MShonle 00:15, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

various Serial Programming orphan-stubs

Serial Programming:RS-422 Technical Manual, Serial Programming:RS-423 Technical Manual, Serial Programming:RS-449 Technical Manual, Serial Programming:MIL-STD-188 Technical Manual and Serial Programming:Serial ATA Technical Manual (and maybe some others) are all contentless stubs since November 2004. Most of them have nothing linking to them and are all linked to from the Serial communications bookshelf (otherwise I'd just leave them alone as being an unfinished part of a book). So what should be done with them? This Serial Programming collection seems to be worked on by someone who's "bitten off more than he can chew" and it's ended up a real mess I'm sorry to say. GarrettTalk 04:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I would recommend that they stay as stubs for the most part. They are all on the Serial Programming bookshelf, and dispite my trying to move them onto the larger Computer Science bookshelf, they kept getting taken off by an editorial dispute. The perception was that at least they were on a bookshelf of some sort. See also Talk:Programming:Serial Data Communications I was the author who started the Serial Programming wikibook, and that is a huge bite to chew, and incredibly technical to really move beyond where I'm at right now. I'll get back to it shortly, but I got "into" trying to clean up Wikibooks as a whole instead of just this one little Wikibook.
    I got into an editorial conflict over the organization of that Wikibook with an anonymous user who wanted to make that Wikibook into a macropedia (I've railed against that elsewhere as well) of serial programming techniques, and I fought back arguing that there really was a coherant book strategy I was trying to follow in writing that Wikibook. The solution was to start this Serial Programming bookshelf, which there is some merit to getting that accomplish. Some of this content is forked/duplicated from Wikipedia, and I don't mind some of that disappearing. There is however some tables and lists of pin connections and some various miscellaneous content that would be inappropriate on Wikipedia but would be useful reference materials for future Wikibooks on this subject. There is also some blatant vandalism or new user experiments and some of that perhaps should go. It is my intention that some of that will become coherant modules that will fit into the larger Wikibook I'm writing, but it just takes time. --Rob Horning 13:22, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but merge all these 'books' into a single book called Serial Programming. The neat thing about this is that all the 'subpages' would automatically conform to WB:NP. - Aya T C 15:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Please delete moved material.

Hello. The Mishnah texts have been moved to English Wikisource.
Admins - the current Mishnah page has links to exact lists of all related pages. All of these have been copied and all of them can be deleted.
If its OK, the best thing would be to leave the current Mishnah page as a redirect to Wikisource.Dovi 08:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)


It's nominated for speedy deletion. User who nominated it IMHO does not understand role of books' cover pages. I suggest immediate removal of {{delete}} --Derbeth 11:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)It seems like it was a misunderstanding. The "viral marketing" comment also seemed to be confusing (I've removed it, because it was added without a comment explaining why, and seemed more like an anti-capitalist complaint than an actual contribution). An admin has already removed the delete template, btw. --MShonle 15:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC) This item will be unlisted for deletion: The original reason it was put up was the result of a misunderstanding, and there have been no more deletion reasons provided. --MShonle 04:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It looks like it's been listed again. The user who nominated it this time says it's "not a textbook", but does not explain why. Also, why wasn't {{vfd-survived}} added to its talk page when it was unlisted before? --Anonymous 07:18 3 June 2006 (UTC)

NeoRandom Chess

Note: If you care to check the history, this section was not added by me, but by Popski, who copied the following text from a note I left on his talk page. - Aya T E C 19:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
This seems like primary research to me, which as a general rule we don't allow. See Wikibooks:About for details. - Aya T E C 19:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - As per Wikibooks:Deletion policy - Aya T E C 19:36, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Okay. I'm prepared to change my mind about this, if it gets moved to a subpage of Chess somewhere, but we really need to re-word our 'primary research' policy, since it does clash with that in the sense of "coining new words" i.e. the word "NeoRandom". This is a tricky one to write. - Aya T E C 01:55, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This needs to be made into a sub-page of a Chess Wikibook, and as a chess variant at that. While terms like "invented" perhaps seem to indicate something new, if this were something like Monopoly or more like Dungeons and Dragons it would hardly even deserve a footnote. I propose that it be moved to a sub-page of Chess, with perhaps an entire section devoted to Chess variants. See also w:Chess for more information about Chess variants including the Gygax "Dragon Chess". (Yes, it is *that* Gygax (, E. Gary) who did a very interesting chess variant still talked about in chess circles.) Another Wikipedia article is also w:Chess variant --Rob Horning 20:59, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Sounds more like someone thinking out loud than a helpful Wikibook. ErikG 18:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • comment - It's fine if it's part of the Chess book, but as it stands it doesn't look like there's room for it to grow into a full book. If the coining of new terms is removed and the grammar is massaged into something more idiomatic it could be a fine and interesting contribution to the Chess book. MShonle 06:38, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep- AVSN@AOL.COM 'massaged' the english on this page and it now sounds a whole lot better. I really like the idea of moving this to the chess variants catagory. AVSN 0453-8/23/2.005
  • Keep I agree, tough, with the idea of moving this to the chess variants catagory. [User:Doidimais_Brasil|Doidimais Brasil].
  • Moved I have moved the page to Chess/Variants/Random Opening Chess and created a simple page from the main Chess Wikibook that acts as a link to other variants of chess. It does need to be cleaned up quite a bit, but that is a seperate discussion that should take place on the discussion page of this Wikibook. I'm keeping the redirect link for now in part because of external linking that the author apparently has done. If there are no more objections or comments, I'll consider this VfD discussion closed and will be moved to the archive in about a week. --Rob Horning 00:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Wrong - It's wrong to delete it because of invented name. Than is also something wrong with the name Wikipedia. Isn't it? Ok, I understand that Wikipedia needs facts. But WikiBooks? Well, than you have to delete also book of Jokes, there I also invented a lot of jokes, but sadly for deleters, I didn't invent only jokes :) No SF either? Wrong! Let's invent option that someday WikiBooks get MetaUser Arthur C. Clarke and he start a brand new, never ever seen WikiBook with a Title: MetaMonolith. You will delete it. Wrong. Oh, 'primary research' policy, btw, I invented NeoRandom Chess on my home installed MediaWiki, not here.--Popski 18:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Ardvark the Aardvark

Due to Wikibooks' rules, Ardvark's new home is now at the Novelas Wikicity. GarrettTalk 00:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


Consensus was to delete or move from Wikibooks. See Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Archive#Neo for the full discussion.
Rather than straight kill it off, I've transwikied it in its entirety to The Conlang Wikicity. I've re-christened it "Wiki Neo" so as not to clash with the Neo they already have there. So if you want to contribute to this language, by all means do so, but take it there instead. Neo here has been recreated as an explanation of this move, and should not contain content of its own. GarrettTalk 13:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)Cool. I don't think the page Neo should continue to exist for very long. Someone may wish to use this page to start a valid Wikibook with the same title (perhaps the existing language 'Neo' as alluded to in the VFD, which would not 'primary research'). The records in /Archive should suffice as a log as to what happened to this content. - Aya T C 15:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

User Reviews

User Reviews and all associated pages have no place in an NPOV project. --Chiacomo 06:00, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral (with leaning toward weak delete) - I can understand why this would be put up for a VfD, but I'm not completely sure if this should be permitted or not. It may be possible to "review" products, or at least catalog information and describe various items in a NPOV manner (like the IMDB without user comments). I don't know completely if you could do that in a non-encyclopedic fasion (making Macropedia issues also relevant in this case) but it is an interesting idea. I've seen a couple of proposals on meta that were for similar kinds of projects, and if I recall properly there were some calls to move the project idea to Wikibooks (something I've railed against repeatedly on meta). --Rob Horning 14:04, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
    • There's no need for spawning yet more projects. Wikibooks can handle products in a neutral manner by writing instruction manuals for them, which can point out both common failure modes of the product and interesting features in an unbiased manner. Rather than having User Reviews-Canon XL1-S presenting one editor's opinion of how "horrible" it is as fact, Wikibooks could have a Canon video camera instruction manual that instead describes the construction of the zoom lens and how to operate it, in amongst describing the construction and operation of all of the other parts. Uncle G 11:02:31, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Delete -- But, boy, would this make a great Wikicity! We should contact the author and encourage them to set it up over there (if there isn't one already?). It makes great sense as a wikicity because that site contains Google Ad Words, so that can kind of complete the whole experience (e.g. to browse the site of someone who sells exactly that product, or to look at a competitor). Highly useful indeed, but not a wikibook. Still, this is a great idea; assuming it keeps more "wikilike" instead of turning into just a message board where people argue and no one wants to read the whole discussion. (For example, if each review coverged into a "consensus" list of pros and cons for a product, you can quickly gather the collective opinion of dozens of people just reading a short list. Though, I would imagine people would like to write essays all of their own too.) MShonle 16:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it's not really appropriate for Wikibooks, but I'm sure it would do well on Wikicity. Geo.T 01:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete A cool idea, that is not, and can be NPOV --Cspurrier 02:13, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it's not appropriate--Tom Maioli 04:18, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • It's an idea that comes up with regularity at Wikinews, too. It's as inappropriate here as it is there. The Neutral Point of View policy is a foundation issue that applies to all WikiMedia projects. Reviews of stuff, written directly by contributors to the project, are inappropriate everywhere. Delete. Uncle G 11:02:31, 2005-08-20 (UTC)
  • Deleted, this violates the founding beliefs of all Wikimedia projects. In future I think this sort of thing could be shot on sight, informing the user of the existence of wikicities of course. I'm unsure if a POV reviews site would be allowed there either though. GarrettTalk 13:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


This was originally nominated as a VfD by User:Dysprosia but for some reason it never got onto this page. The purpose of this Wikibook is very politically motived, and is something that generally wouldn't be allowed on any Wikimedia server. I've been cleaning out the "attic" of Wikibooks and came across this, so I feel it needs a vote. --Rob Horning 13:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- No major work has been done on it with a year. It's more of a campaign website (filled with "goals" like "making buttons" and "brochures") or a manifesto than anything else. (Further, they should perhaps try to study some economics first.) MShonle 16:56, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it does looks like an abandoned campaign site. Geo.T 01:07, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — Don't see the potential for useful content here. — Everlong 19:06, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — nothing there, no information.--Tom Maioli 04:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Deleted, there's obvious consensus that it's not a textbook, that it's dead since last year (even the Yahoo! group is dying) and that we are not a web host. Changing the world is an admirable goal for a wikicity though. GarrettTalk 13:41, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

How to write an essay:Introduction

This Wikibook is something else to behold. Random stuff that perhaps belongs on a users journal page, certainly not as a wikibook. Unfortunately the contributor was anonymous, so even that option is not really something that makes sense. This has nothing to do with the Wikibook How to write an essay other than it is in the same namespace. --Rob Horning 20:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Interesting to read, but wikibooks is not a house for personal journal entries. MShonle 20:49, 6 August 2005 (UTC) But come to think of it, it would also serve as an example of an essay, so it could actually have something to do with "how to write an essay." MShonle 01:03, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it does read like a journal entry. Geo.T 01:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Someone's bad essay. ErikG
  • Deleted. It was not presented as if to be an example of an essay, or at least it was not heavily annotated or even linked to from the rest of the project. GarrettTalk 13:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)


Due to not being really about the template but more about when and how to use such templates, this Vfd entry has been declared invalid and moved to Wikibooks talk:Manual of Style#inter-wiki template usage.


This looks to me like fiction, but I'm not sure. What do others think? - Aya T C 01:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- It's a collection of folk stories annotated with interpretations. Thus, it's not wikisource, because it has that extra information. This should be a perfect home for it. MShonle 01:17, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep -- Sufi folklore that belongs in an encyclopedia to improve understanding of Sufism.
  • Kept, seems this is an annotated historical (folklore) work. No reason to even keep voting. GarrettTalk 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Five Children And It

A remnant of this exists in the page history. The full book is already at Wikisource (Five Children and It) and there is no sign of annotation of what is here. GarrettTalk 05:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - It has no meaningful content at the moment, and I also agree that this needs to be in Wikisource. --Rob Horning 13:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — it's only a remnant, with no meaningful content. Geo.T 01:14, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikisource is the place for it.

Suavecito Productions and Image:Suavecito.jpg

This looks like an ad for a low-budget film. Stunning artwork, but not a book. At least I don't think so. I gave it some time to develop to see if it would grow into something, but it hasn't. GarrettTalk 01:20, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - it seems to be vanity work of User:Suavecito. KelvSYC 01:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment upon further investigation ([ official site]) this seems to have been an abortive attempt to write a "history books lie! Only WE know the truth about our people!!!" sort of thing. Or maybe just an ad for said site. Hm. GarrettTalk 01:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - Considering that User:Suavecito has only made a total of four contribution to Wikibooks, it seems unlikely that more will happen, although that may not be guarenteed. I've had similar lapses between when I've first edited to when I've put substnatially more content into a Wikimedia project. Still, this looks like a simple ad and with no real content I don't see a reason to keep either the image (potentially sucking bandwidth from Wikimedia servers for other purposes) or this page. --Rob Horning 18:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- We're not a remote image storage service. MShonle 21:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Game theory

Has not been worked on after the intial edit, over a year ago. --Azertus 22:16, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'll jump on board to make this book a little more developed. However I'm afraid I can only really bring it to a rather basic level, only having a grasp of the more basic elements of Game Theory. Serge 00:13, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
It seems there were two books: Game theory and Game Theory, so I've merged the minimal content from Game theory and Talk:Game theory into Talk:Game Theory, and deleted it. Simple, eh? - Aya T C 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Writing Effective Praise and Worship Songs

Has been tagged as vfd by Mattrix back in February this year. --Azertus 00:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Doesn't seem like much is going to happen there soon... --Azertus 00:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - This contained only the single sentence "A guide to writing effective praise and worship songs". I really saw no point in continuing this vote. - Aya T C 00:32, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ardvark the Aardvark

Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not, #4, fiction. Dysprosia 10:54, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)Please take another look at the Ardvark The Aardvark series before deletion. This is a completely cc-by-sa project focusing on creating free and open educational children's books. The first book includes a lesson on homonyms and tricks for remembering the difference between there their and they're. This is paired with the (also cc-by-sa) artwork over at Wikimedia, and once assembled, has the potential to be the basis for a number of community created educational children's works with a fun and familiar set of characters. Glitch010101 13:40, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC) So, is the book CC or GFDL? If it's not also licensed under GFDL it shouldn't belong on the servers. --MShonle 02:53, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)The 'homonyms' you describe are not homonyms at all. They are homophones. 12:47, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC) I'm not voting, but if this is to be deleted from here, it could be copied to the Fiction Wikicity first. Angela 22:47, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and discuss the issue. I think Wikibooks should allow for collaborative fiction, or at least work on clarifying that aspect of "what it is not." Sj 20:03, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fiction of any kind, including collaborative fiction, should be treated the same as original research. I think the Wikimedia projects are just not the place for this. TUF-KAT 05:18, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. There's also a wikibook "Jokes", which isn't really reality either. Educational fiction is fine. Guaka 11:57, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Licensing issues aside, collaborative fiction is considered OR under WB:WIN. At any rate, the fate of this vote will largely determine whether fiction for the purposes of education belongs on wikibooks. KelvSYC 03:37, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Reluctantly, because a lot of work has obviously gone into writing it. But, if I interpret Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not correctly, then it has to go. I hope a place is found for it somewhere, because it deserves to be read. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 05:53, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Fiction for the purposes of education should fit in with our purposes - is it really any different to the use of "Practice Dialogues" say in the Foreign Language learning Wikibooks? It could also fit in well with WikiJunior Serge 22:38, Jun 30, 2005
  • Delete: Reluctantly, because the book is very good. But this is just not the right place for it. It would be a great book on an appropriate site such as Fiction Wikicity (see above). Practice dialogues are used as examples in a non-fiction text - it's like using hypothetical situations in science, psychology, etc. But this is out-and-out fiction.
    • This vote unsigned, and thus not counted unless the original author cares to sign it. - Aya T C 19:04, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: the word "textbook" is just meaningless for under-12s if this kind of material is excluded --Taejo 17:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: this is a great example of the kinds of 'textbooks' I had growing up (grades 1 and 2). My father (a missionary kid) also had similar 'textbooks' when he was a kid - I know this because we inherited them. They were so entertaining to read that I didn't realize we were learning anything. Similar material is often used for learning to read or in English classes. --Phibian 13:49, 21 July 2005
  • Keep: "As such we do not allow original writing that is not educational or instructional, such as original works of fiction, original literature, or original research in any field." - Omegatron 20:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I came here specifically looking for early childhood texts. I was disappointed at the vast lack of them. Killing the only living example would be horrid. Josh Parris 07:26, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per WWIN, this book is educational so it is allowed on Wikibooks. ("we do not allow original writing that is not educational or instructional") --Brian0918 16:49, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Wikibooks needs to stay non-fiction. meta:Wikifiction has a discussion about a fiction-based Wikimedia project that would be able to take content such as this. Otherwise, it really should be moved to Wikicities. While educational in nature, it doesn't fit the textbook nature of Wikibooks in general. Allowing this content to remain on Wikipedia opens a whole pandora's box of possibilities that we really don't want to include here yet. --Rob Horning 18:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Wow, I had no idea this discussion was still going on! I was going to vote neutral, and please fee free to discount my vote since I'm the author, but I really have thought about this for wikibooks and I believe that educational texts need not be restricted to the classical definition of 'textbook', especially for younger students. Many thanks to the anonymous user above who clarified that theres are, in fact, homophones and not homonyms. My mistake! I'll edit the text soon to fix that. Finally, as far as the license, I'm perfectly happy to dual license it under the GFDL as well, in fact I believe that I had to consent to that to include it here originially. In my understanding, CC-BY-SA and GFDL are almost identical, with the exception of the fact that I'm not sure if you have to attribute the author in the GFDL. CC-BY-SA is accepted at the wikimedia commons - Can anyone help clarify or advise? - Glitch010101 18:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep unitl it can be transwiki'ed -- Given that it actually is under GFDL too, I think we should keep it for now. Children's books are instructional resources and until a wikifiction site or a fiction wikicity is created to house this, we should hold it. MShonle 20:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - So this book is "educational fiction", is it? Was I the only one to notice this? WB:WIN point #4 states:
As such we do not allow original writing that is not educational or instructional, such as original works of fiction, original literature, or original research in any field. Now, if you read that as... As such we do not allow original writing that is not educational or instructional, such as original works of fiction, original literature, or original research in any field.'s okay, but if you read it as... As such we do not allow original writing that is not educational or instructional, such as original works of fiction, original literature, or original research in any field.'s not. Hilarious. Paradoxes rock. Perhaps this entire VFD section should form the beginnings of a new BJAODN for Wikibooks? It would seem the author of that particular gem seems to believe that fiction can never be educational. Oh well. Don't worry. I'm in the process of sorting out this particular document. Probably a waste of time to continue voting until I'm done. See Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy#Policy merge for the gory details. - Aya T C 00:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Okay. I've updated Wikibooks:About, which now makes it clear that fiction is a no-no, and should go to If anyone want to transwiki this, let me know ASAP. - Aya T C 00:26, 9 August 2005 (UTC)I'll transwiki it myself (unless someone beats me to it of course) to make sure the process is done correctly, so you can leave its deletion to me. :) GarrettTalk 13:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Thanks, Garrett. I knew you'd be a good candidate for admin. I would've nominated you myself, had you not beaten me to it by nominating yourself just a few hours earlier. - Aya T C 15:00, 9 August 2005 (UTC) LOL! Indeed. Now transwikied to the wikicities:c:novelas:Ardvark the Aardvark collection. GarrettTalk 23:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Bureaucrat log

This is a redundant page and points to old and never updated content. All link to this page should instead have the following link: Special:Log/rights This link from the Special:Logs page is automatically updated by MediaWiki software, removing the need for the more redundant page listed above. I would have made this a speedy delete except for the fact that it is a protected page. Perhaps a redirect? --Rob Horning 11:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep - Prior to MediaWiki v1.4, various logs now automated at Special:Log were housed in the project namespace. We're supposed to keep the for historical purposes (apparently). See also Wikibooks:Protected page#List of semi-permanently protected pages. - Aya T C 20:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Is there concern that the Special:Log pages are going to be killed in the next update of MediaWiki? I understand the historical reasoning for keeping them where they are, but certainly any links to these pages should be moved over to reflect actual data (like your changing User:Geocachernemesis to become an admin) that isn't on this historical page. All of the data on the page I'm proposing to kill is already in the log as well, minus the new change. I guess I'm trying to outguess the developers in this instance. --Rob Horning 22:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Erm. What I mean is that prior to v1.4, MediaWiki automatically updated logs on the page Wikibooks:Bureaucrat log. After v1.4, the use of that page was discontinued, and the page Special:Log/rights was used for the same purpose. So all logging prior to 2005 is on the first page, and all logging from 2005 onwards is on the second. Together they form a complete log for the entire history of the project. I haven't seen any plans for MediaWiki to discontinue the use of the Special:Log page in the future. - Aya T C 23:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • keep for sake of completeness, if what Aya says is correct. Kellen T 03:55, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • If it stays, it should get a big fat warning at the top. There is no indication that the page is not live. It needs a link to the active page. AlbertCahalan 08:10, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Kept - Added warning. - Aya T C 22:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Doing some more orphan page cleanup. All of this content was added by a single user: User:Information Ecologist. As he is still semi-active (at least checking into Wikibooks every now and again) I'm throwing these pages up for a VfD instead of a speedy delete. Appears to be original research, and some machine generated text from some database of some sort. Primary project seems to be missing. Was this a part of an earlier cleanup and got missed? See also Talk:Information Ecology --Rob Horning 20:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
A related Wikibook that has a VfD tag is Morphometrics. VfD tag added by User:Naryathegreat in April but apparently missed getting a discussion. --Rob Horning 21:03, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — the first three have to go because they appear to be original research, but I'll vote to delete Morphometrics too. Geo.T 01:01, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment - I guess this is a bigger mess than I thought. There are several modules in the orphan bin that all connect to Information Ecology, leading me to believe that this page was deleted but the sub modules weren't for some reason. There is original research and database dumps (aka the list problem that is an orphaned Wikimedia project) and a very strong POV in this whole Wikibook. I also don't want to upset User:Information Ecologist, as it looks like he does have some interesting ideas. It is just that some of the content here certainly is not suitable for Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 05:04, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • OMG!!! I just found the mother of all VfD discussions. I just unearthed a huge can of worms... seriously! This discussion dates back to April 23rd when User:TUF-KAT deleted this discussion and didn't store it in an archive. I just put the discussion into the archive for all to see again. The following are pages to add to this discussion:
    • For those that were involved back elsewhen, perhaps you can enlighten us on other discussion/thoughts besides those on the archive. --Rob Horning 05:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
      • What's in the archive is good enough. For me, the issue wasn't the topic per se, but the implementation of it. It could have been a topic to make a valid book out of, but it doesn't seem to have much hope. I think I'll continue to abstain. MShonle 06:43, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - This stuff was already voted for deletion, there's no need to vote again. It seems Andreas Ipp must have accidentally missed them. - Aya T C 15:55, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


  • Keep : Lincher 23:59, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC). It is a great idea as wikipedia brings people together, it can also be used to create a language to make people speak together, in a way it should be pushed because it help creating communities.
  • Keep Delete : Jun-Dai 19:45, 2 May 2005 (UTC) I don't know that it is a "great" idea, or that it is really appropriate for wikibooks, but I'm in favor of keeping it as I'm curious to see where it goes, and there's no place in the Wikispace that is currently more appropriate for it than here. I no longer think that this is appropriate in Wikibooks. Even if we bent the rules about primary research, etc., we'd still have to overcome the fact that we are attempting to create a new, international language on an English wiki-project. This wikibook is essentially doomed, but the core idea behind it has, I think, merit. It should really be a project of its own--one that somehow coordinates efforts from any language. The fact that the name already exists as an artificial language is not, by the way, a good arguement for deleting the project. If that were the only problem, then a simple renaming would be in order. Jun-Dai 10:17, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete:PurplePieman 08:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC) Well, here's the thing. According to this page Neo is a "real" language, that was invented by an Arturo Alfandani from Belgium back in the 60's when international languages were all the rage. Apparently, it had quite a bit of a following for a little while. However, is this the same Neo as the one in this wikibook? It doesn't sound like it is. So, I would like the book to discuss the original Neo. I, too, think that it is an inappropriate usage of Wikibooks to try to create a new language, especially when one already exists with the same name. Hopefully, someone can step forward with more information on this obscurity.
  • Keep: 20:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC) The Neo created by Arturo Alfandani may have been a language in the 60s, but it isn't anymore. Even the link you gave says that old Neo is "dead". Also, if Wikibooks can write about Esperanto and other articifical languages, why not a new artificial language? Wikibooks is ideally set up for that sort of collaboration. Sure, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but why not Wikibooks?
Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not allowed to vote. KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC) It's still a language whether anyone speaks it anymore, or not. Haven't you ever heard of a "dead" language (like Sanskrit, or Latin)? Besides, why insist on using a name that's already taken? Because Neo sounds cool? As for why a new language project shouldn't be on Wikibooks, see Wikibooks is not (item #9) "A place for primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, etc. If you have done primary research on a topic, publish your results in normal peer-reviewed journals, or elsewhere on the web." I do think it's kind of a cool idea, but this is not the place for it, and it should get a new name to avoid confusion with the existing Neo language. PurplePieman 01:38, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Archive it somewhere so the information can be used in a new project. It's an interesting idea, but it doesn't belong on English Wikibooks. Also, I agree that the project should use a different name. Jobarts-Talk 05:02, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: While I think that it's a really cool idea, if I stick to the spirit (if not the word) of what Wikibooks is not, then it really doesn't belong on Wikibooks. Possible new homes for this project have been suggested on it's talk page. I hope it flourishes there. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:17, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Aya 8 July 2005 15:27 (UTC). Justifications follow:
    • There are already too many little-used constructed languages (e.g. Klingon, Loglan, Lojban, see also: conlanger), and although I find the idea fascinating, I don't believe they will ever amount to anything. None of these will ever become as popular as Esperanto. Do we really want to advocate another new language to die off into obscurity?
    • I very much doubt it will ever evolve into anything beyond a list of english words and translations into some psuedo-Western-European language. There is no defined grammar or usage. And if no-one speaks it, what use is it?
    • The page clearly states "Q: Who is the author of Neo?" then "A: You are!". So it is clearly original research.
    • The page name might serve to confuse it with the existing language of the same name as stated by others.
  • Keep If people are worried that the language will die off into obsurity, then why are you saying it should be deleted straight away? If the argument is, "Do we really want to advocate another new language to die off into obscurity?" then we should let it be under its own devices. And yes, Neo should be in the English Wikibooks section. It's written in English. Abc123.
  • Delete In opposition to the above, I enter the following: Wikibooks should not be a place for original work, in any field. It seems that Neo is purporting to construct itself in Wikibooks, which is contrary to the mission of Wikibooks. The page should therefore be deleted. Abc123.
  • Delete I have been relutant to oppose this Wikibook, as it is something I rather enjoy (linguistics) and is rather interesting. It would be nice to try and trans-wiki this to another place (perhaps someplace in Wikicities?), but it really doesn't belong here on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 03:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Just as the 21st Century Math book went, so should this. The reason we don't allow original research is because of the importance of maintaining credibility. Ideally, our books should be well referenced and contain abundant primary or secondary source citations. Doing so means that our readers can give us a certain level of trust right off the bat. The way we present information can be original or innovative, but what we present should already be heavily vetted by the relevant experts/scholars/et cetera. MShonle 03:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
I feel the consensus here is delete. If anyone wishes to transwiki this, let me know ASAP. - Aya T C 00:32, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Rather than straight kill it off, I've transwikied it in its entirety to The Conlang Wikicity. I've re-christened it "Wiki Neo" so as not to clash with the Neo they already have there. So if you want to contribute to this language, by all means do so, but take it there instead. Neo here has been recreated as an explanation of this move, and should not contain content of its own. GarrettTalk 13:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Harry Potter plots and Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter

Transwikied from wikipedia but not an instructional resource. Kappa 21:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • But wouldn't Cliffs Notes be considered instructional resources? These seem no different than Cliffs Notes, and the instructional uses of those seems reasonable. I think it would be going too far to have a wikibook television episode guide, but this doesn't seem to cross the line. MShonle 21:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • May not need a vote. See Talk:Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood Prince. - Aya T C 02:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • This is no longer considered copyvio, so go ahead and vote. As an bureaucrat, I don't feel comfortable voting myself, but I will point out there are similar works in our English Literature bookshelf already. - Aya T C 21:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This book has incredible value towards providing contextual information on the Harry Potter books. Character and setting context are helpfully explained to aide in understanding the books' environments and character information. The book is very useful when needing to look up a bit of character information or where an event may have occurred. It is an excellent guide. Wikipedia also heavily links to the book to provide extended descriptions of plot sysnopses on Harry Potter book pages. Also, this deletion may have been nominated due to a personal vendetta on HP plot pages and the user is making conflicting VfD votes on Wikipedia. -Matt 14:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — this is indeed practically a CliffsNotes version of the book, created here in response to objections raised over on Wikipedia on having pages such as w:Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary. Many users raised concerns that this is a copyvio — if that's the case, then the Harry Potter Lexicon should have been shut down about two years ago. Relax, people. I don't think Rowling's going to sue the pants off us for a summary of the books. Oh, and second Matt's vote up there. Hermione1980 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not permitted to vote. KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
      • There, I've registered. Can my vote count now, or do you have a policy against new users voting, like they do over on Wikipedia? Hermione1980 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • As it says at the top of the page, read Wikibooks:Deletion policy for the rules. We haven't had to institute a Wikipedia-esque policy to vote as of yet, since Wikibooks is generally less active, and thus far less controversy occurs. We also like to think we're slightly more flexible than Wikipedia. Hopefully as we tighten up policy, we shouldn't need nearly as many VFDs, since the cases will be more clear-cut. - Aya T C 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete As a pure fork of Wikipedia content, it should go, but if there is some progress to incorporate new content above and beyond what could be folded back into the Wikipedia pages, I would support it staying on Wikibooks. I would strongly suport a reader's guide to Harry Potter (that could even be a real, honest to goodness textbook that would be in demand by educators...something we desperately need on Wikibooks), but I don't see this plot spoiler doing the trick. --Rob Horning 08:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • It's not a fork. It's a transwiki. Uncle G 11:28:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
    • I second Uncle G: It's not a fork, it's a transwiki. Wikibooks is the more likely place for this page to live. MShonle 14:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Study guides and annotated texts are well within the remit of Wikibooks. As long as that is the direction in which these are headed, which is simply a matter of us encouraging that by adding the infrastructre to support the beginnings of annotation, Keep. Uncle G 11:28:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
    • There are plans to improve the current content as well as adding content to make the book more useful. I'm only waiting for this page to get off VFD so that I can start editing. -Matt 13:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • You can edit now. Nothing's stopping you, and we're not very likely to reach any consensus. Just go ahead. :) GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I realize nothing restricts my editing but I thought the page should be left untouched until VFD finishes. I thought that was policy to avoid biased voting due to edits. Anyway, I will try to get to it. I'm somewhat new to the Wiki administrative system and I'd like the book renamed to simply "Harry Potter" if possible. Could someone point me to how I request that? Since I'd like the book to be more comprehensive over time, I thought adding things like extended character descriptions in addition to the plot synopses would be helpful. Any problems with that? I like the "Harry Potter textbook" idea and would definitely try to make it so. -Matt 14:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
          • This is a discussion, not an election. Things don't freeze on polling day. You not only may edit the module to address the concerns raised during the discussion, you are encouraged to. Uncle G 19:46:15, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
          • I don't think it would be wise to call the book "Harry Potter": that would be way too confusing. We need to signal what it is. Like "A Textbook on Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter Plot Summaries". It should be very obvious to someone what it is, and just the name "Harry Potter" wouldn't be telling enough. MShonle 15:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Would something like "Harry Potter Summaries / Analysis" be appropriate then? The thing I'm really looking for is to get the word "plot" off so that other sections like "characters" can be added. -Matt 16:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
              • "Harry Potter Summaries / Analysis" sounds like a great title to me. The analysis part seems key to mention, to show that it is our free speech... i.e., we have the right to analyze/critique copyrighted works. Though, perhaps I'd avoid the slash in the name. "Harry Potter Summaries and Analysis" perhaps? Indeed, the word plot is rather flat. MShonle 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                • I agree that "Harry Potter Summaries and Analysis" sounds good. Could you point me to where I shoud go to request the rename, or can you do it yourself? I hope this VFD business doesn't restrict the rename process. Not to rush, but since there are several "Keep" votes present already, can the vote be removed and the VFD notice on the page removed? An above comment mentioned this process can be slow and it seems a concensus has been reached here. -Matt 17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • I think we need to wait a little bit for the VFD discussion to end, but it certainly has no legal issues, and it appears well within wikibooks's goals... plus, it's not offensive or controversial either. So I think there's a good chance we'll keep it. Does anyone know if we can move pages while there is a VFD discussion? Conservatively, we might have to wait. MShonle 19:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Just call it the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, and let it contain WikiCliffNotes with character analyses, plot analyses, and whatnot. (The name, albeit unoriginal, is an allusion to the Lurkers' Guide. Handling the Harry Potter book chapters in the same manner that the Lurkers' Guide handles episodes — with overviews, analyses, notes, and Hints That The Author Has Dropped (example) — appears to be a good way to proceed, avoiding the trap of simply writing Readers' Digest condensed versions of the books, and a form of annotation that I think would be within Wikibooks' remit.) The module being discussed here would be renamed to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books. See the suggested structure. Uncle G 19:46:15, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
              • I will start working on the guide you just created. Thanks. Once this VFD finishes I will look over the content and try to use some of it to form the new Muggles' guide. I will then redirect this book to the new Muggles' guide. I am also going to go through Wikipedia and set up new links to the new Muggles' guide. In a way, this book will become defunct, but towards a better good of creating the Muggles' guide. I think it will form an excellent textbook-type book and will be enjoyed. -Matt 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Any discussion of "copyright violations" and "derivative works" needs to have a couple other phrases in there too: "fair use" and "freedom of speech." It's our right to talk about the works of others. Even if there is a letter from Rowling's publishers, that just means it's time to contact Larry Lessig, it's not time to lie down and let coorporations violate our rights by overstepping fair use. Indeed, we can even quote from the book if we like. Please, everyone, do read up more about fair use. MShonle 14:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess Wikipedians are so used to their weekly "so-called fair use is often not!!!" injections that they're unable to avoid ccopyright paranoia. But the shots must be wearing off as I've just changed my mind on the matter. I think we can keep this, at least until we receive a nasty letter or three. :) I've never really sat down to read all these confusing fair use laws, which is rather ridiculous considering every one of the 80+ images I've uploaded to WP has been claimed as such(!) ...I really should devote some time to that. Hm. Anyway thanks for the reminder! :) GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I've been convinced that this can be arguably fair use, and regardless it evidently has its place here on Wikibooks. It's turned into a fine addition to our library! GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - (IMHO Speedy Delete) This is a fork of Wikipedia pure and simple, and a stale fork at that. The content on Wikipedia seems to be better proofread and organized better (with images, etc.). At the very least, if this is a trans-wiki from Wikipedia, please state so on the discussion pages here on Wikibooks, and potentially a link to the discussions about doing a transwiki on Wikipedia (if any), and a good demonstration that the content is being removed from Wikipedia as well. So far, I don't see that at all. Other than the purely copied content from Wikipedia, there is nothing else to this Wikibook. I support a "Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter" or some other book, it is just that the current content does not justify it staying on Wikibooks right now. If the Tesla book had to be deleted purely because it was a fork (and original content was added in that case), this more than qualifies as justification for deleting. The #1 reason for the no fork rule is to avoid getting Wikibooks in the middle of an edit war on Wikipedia, especially when we don't necessarily understand all of the background on what started the edit war in the first place. All of these entries have been written as encyclopedia-like articles as well, and not as a coherant strategy to actually write a book. At the very least, get rid of the duplicated content (with a {{delete|duplicate from Wikipedia}} tag on each module) and start putting something original that can't be incorporated into existing Wikipedia content. --Rob Horning 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • My understanding of it was that the page has been deleted from Wikipedia, as this was seen as a better home for it. We can certainly get it more into the accademic realm, and that would make it less like any articles that may or may not still exist on the pedia. MShonle 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Although this guide will slowly fade away once its content comes into the new Muggles' guide, a deletion is unnecessary. The content still needs to be accessible. Wikipedia was not the place for the content and has been cleaned off. -Matt 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I guess I'm arguing that the content that is duplicated from Wikipedia needs to be removed. I see that there is some chapter by chapter analysis that is not going to be in Wikipedia. Still, it looks largely like a string of Wikipedia articles, and I would like to see larger justification as to why more Wikipedia articles couldn't be created for this content as a Wikiproject instead of making them a Wikibook, and what the general organizational principles are going to be. Very few of the current "voters" for this Wikibook seem to be regulars to this page previous to this VfD coming on this list (not necessarily a reason by itself to discredit the votes, however). Other Wikibooks have been deleted for having far more original content and less justification than what I've given above. --Rob Horning 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the long-standing interrelationships between Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource, and how they operate in concert in situations such as these. Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
        • Some plot content was copied from Wikipedia because it is going to be cut from Wikipedia. If you look at the HP WikiProject you will see that all plot summaries on Wikipedia are planned for massive cutdowns. That makes all content on the Muggles' Guide original. Except for perhaps some small phrasing, content will not be copied. Over time the book will take over for extended analysis and important points of the series, something an annotated text should do. Wikipedia has its place for noting some of the Harry Potter series, but the Muggles' Guide seems to be seen by almost everyone as the place for a strategic guide of the storyline. -Matt 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is referring users to this link, and the WikiBook is IMHO a much better source for particular plot points that users are looking for. Anyone who wants simple spoilers can look any one of a thousand other places, and those who want to read the books will still be reading the books. Rather, this is more useful to users who want to refer to a particular plot point or thread. Regarding the post above, this is not a candidate for Speedy Delete. The content posted has taken a long time to compile, which does not fall under the "no meaningful content" category, which is more often reserved for vandalism. I don't see where it has been voted for deletion either. Kermitmorningstar 00:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Where is the "meaningful content"? I see a few new stubs for chapter by chapter analysis that weren't there eariler, and it does look like there is some new content otherwise, but there also appears large sections of text that is lifted straight from Wikipedia. Is the synopsis sections of the Wikipedia articles going to be deleted from Wikipedia? Info on the discussion pages to detail how this stuff is being moved over really needs to be added, and perhaps a little history. I also dislike the "end run" to avoid deletion by renaming the main page... that really smells to me. --Rob Horning 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
      • As I said above, text is not going to be directly copied from Wikipedia. This is going to be a balanced action. One will make up for the other. Wouldn't annotations and analysis of a story be more appropriate as a book than as encyclopedia articles? The amount of meaningful content that will go into this book is massive. The index page could have thousands of entries. The story's books become detailed enough to deserve a book cataloging and referencing them. Every chapter will be analyzed, every character documented, each place visited explained, the list goes on and on. This book could be really excellent and I plan on putting a lot of time into it. The HP WikiProject does discuss in detail what to do with the plot summaries. Over time I plan on discussing the move (not copy) of content to the book since it seems more appropriate. -Matt 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
        • I've done some more "research" in terms of trying to get the background on what is going on here. There appear to be a lot of "sock puppets" doing voting here, but that is another discussion. My big concern right now is that this is mostly being put together by Wikipedia editors and I see Wikipedia styles coming over as well. I'm willing to do a "wait and see" in regards to how this Wikibook will get put together. As I mentioned earlier, quite a bit of discussion has been all over the place at Wikipedia, but links to that disucssion are hard to come by for somebody who doesn't frequent Wikipedia that much (such as myself). I definitely see that there is some "fire" going on for some potential contributors, and this is something that is often lacking for books that get a VfD listing here with Wikibooks. I hope this Wikibook does turn out and become something worth having here. --Rob Horning 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
          • The assertion that this is "Wikipedia style" is complete rubbish. The organization of the Wikibook is nothing like how such a thing would be organized at Wikipedia, and very much like how other Wikibooks are organized. Have a look around at some other Wikibooks. If you are finding links to Wikipedia hard to come by, please read the start of this very discussion, where they were explicitly supplied by the very editors that you are accusing of being "sock puppets". Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
            • I accuse them of being "sock puppets" because their one and only edit on Wikibooks is to have a vote here in this discussion. That is hardly being a part of the Wikibooks community by any stretch of the imagination. As far as having to search for discussions going on Wikipedia before trying to kill something on Wikibooks, I don't think that is my place. If you are putting content on Wikibooks that is being moved from Wikipedia, you should try to point to that discussion on the new content here to justify the reasons why it is being moved. Or if the page is being completely culled (as was the case here), the talk pages from that content should also be trans-wikied if for no reason that the discussion information shouldn't be lost as well. And no, links at the beginning of this discussion are not all that is needed. --Rob Horning 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Harry Potter plots, the main page, hasn't been renamed at all, and still exists where it always was. Ironically, it actually should have been renamed. Renaming things during a deletion discussion is fine, by the way. (It simply has to be done carefully, although some of the considerations that exist on Wikipedia in relation to renaming, causing its prohibition unless an editor knows exactly what xe is doing, do not (yet) apply here.) It is merging that causes GFDL problems, and that is thus disallowed during deletion. No mergers have been performed in this case, of course. It's pretty apparent that there's plenty of meaningful content in the module. (At one point, the 32KiB page size warning was appearing for one of the sub-pages.) Asking "Where is the meaningful content?" when it is right there staring us all in the face is bizarre. Indeed, whilst the erroneous assertion that it qualifies for speedy deletion is being made, this annotation of the Harry Potter series of books is already, even as just the skeleton that it is, better than some of the annotated texts that have existed on Wikibooks for years, such as The Once and Future King. Whilst cries are being made for its speedy deletion, it is giving every indication of having the potential to eventually be a flagship annotated text, demonstrating Wikibooks at its best.
        Any "detailing of how this stuff is being moved over" belongs in the transwiki log, not on the talk pages as you would have it. Please familiarize yourself with the transwiki system. (The anonymous editor who performed the transwiki appears not to be familiar with it, either, in fairness. The process was, let us say, somewhat muddled at Wikipedia. If it had been done in the usual fashion, I or one of the other editors more experienced with the transwiki system could have performed it in the more conventional manner. I've added the missing log entries.)
        The reasons that the text is "lifted from Wikipedia" is because it is a transwiki, as already pointed out twice, in the nomination above and directly to you a second time. The Wikipedia articles that were transwikied are now soft redirects. (And in fact Wikipedia has at last gained a way to reference "new style" Wikibooks as a direct result of this.)
        This peculiar "forking of Wikipedia" argument, flying as it does in the face of many editors pointing out that this is a transwiki, asking as it does for things to be explained that are right there in plain sight, and asking as it does for an indication of what's being deleted from Wikipedia when links to both the relevant VFD discussions and the soft redirects that are now in place on Wikipedia have even been explicitly supplied earlier in this discussion, is baffling. Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
        • All I asked for was to demonstrate that the content being placed on Wikibooks was different from what was already on Wikipedia. When this was originally posted as a VfD discussion, and when I placed my vote above, I couldn't tell any difference between the content on Wikipedia and the content here on Wikibooks. I still don't. Indeed I find that the commentary on Wikipedia has been organized and formatted in a much better manner, and to this point this is just a duplication of content from Wikipedia. If, as you seem to be suggesting, that the content on Wikipedia is going to be deleted, I am much more supportive of this content here on Wikibooks. If this is just a duplication of what is on Wikipedia, the Wikibooks content needs to be killed. That is a simple argument that you don't seem to like. Forking of Wikipedia content is expressedly prohibited on Wikibooks, especially when it appears that Wikipedia is doing a good enough job with that content. I also fail to see why this content can't be left on Wikipedia, and the current structure of the Muggle's Guide seems to be a Macropedia, something also expressedly prohibited by Wikibooks standards. A case in point: w:Harry Potter (character) and Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Harry Potter are identical in scope and goal, both are encyclopedic in nature, and the one here on Wikibooks really should go, in addition to the fact that the Wikipedia version is much better done.
          For these reasons I feel I am more than justified to complain about how this is being put on here. As far as "understanding the transwiki system", that is pure 100% bolvine excriment. The whole point of this discussion on the VfD page is to "enlighten" others with your viewpoint, and if you need to point to places in the trans-wiki log, please do so. That still doesn't mean that the content ought to be placed here on Wikibooks. BTW, I will point to an external link about this discussion. If there is content that is "orphaned" due to no Wikimedia project wanting to take it up, a discussion about where to put it is on Foundation-l. I certainly hope that this Harry Potter content doesn't ends up that way. Still, just because Wikipedia says that the content should be here on Wikibooks does not make it so, and if Wikibookians don't want it here, we should be free to kick it off as well. --Rob Horning 17:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
          • I'd like to direct you to what what Wikipedia is not because I think you are missing the point of this book. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikibooks is about annotated texts, instructional resources, and analysis of material (not easy to link to those points). I think it is inappropriate that you referenced Muggles' Guide pages in your argument because the book is less than a week old. Those pages are under heavy development and cannot be compared whatsoever. For instance, there is going to be far more to character pages. I planned on adding branches tonight. Wikipedia should not just stockpile HP information; some of it is really pushing what an encyclopedia should contain. Besides providing detailed information, the Muggles' Guide will provide annotation. That is hugely important. The abilities of the book have been discussed quite a bit by now and I'm not sure how else to explain here to you how the content is useful and well within guidelines of Wikibooks. Everyone else discussing agrees the book is fair for Wikibooks. -Matt 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Since you are invoking policy statements, check out Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not, and even if this content doesn't belong on Wikipedia, that still doesn't mean it belongs here. Fine, Wikipedia has decided to remove that content. A Transwiki does not guarentee that the receiving project has to accept the new content. In terms of Annotated texts, this wikibooks really doesn't qualify either. Annotated text means that you have the text of the document (Such as The Bible) and you annotate or make notes about the content within the text. Annotated lawbooks are very common, and this is a tradition that goes back mellenia, partiularly when books were copied by hand and some transcriptionists decided to do more than merely copy the material but also add their own comments about what they were copying. In this regard, it would be illegal right now to do this because that would be a copyright violation. A study guide like Lord of the Flies seems to be more like what you are trying to compare against. OK, I'll bite. Still, by doing a Transwiki you should have moved the content from the main articles of Wikipedia to the Transwiki namespace. See: meta:Transwiki#How the transwiki process works This isn't being done either. This is a fork of current Wikipedia content and you know it. By moving the content to the Transwiki namespace you are indicating that eventually it will be deleted. Wikibooks has a number of problems, and there is content that doesn't belong. That is precisely the reason for the VfD discussion... to determine from the Wikibook community if it belongs. It shouldn't be considered an insult but a vindication if you win the vote, or if it is controvercial for its placement that the controvercy is available for everybody to see it. I am trying to argue some critical points and pointing out books like Biography of Nikola Tesla were deleted and the vote to undelete that wikibook seem to indicate a certain relutance to have any Wikipedia content here on Wikibooks. By that standard, this Harry Potter book should not only have been deleted, but a speedy delete as well based on earlier community standards and sentiment. That it isn't going through a speedy delete is just due to the fact that this disucssion is taking place. I also say that the encyclopedia-like articles for each Harry Potter character do need to be removed, as it is duplication of effort and again a fork of Wikipedia content. If you want to provide links to Wikipedia content in an organized fashion, that would be OK. However, even the module that contains the links as it stands right now really ought to be on Wikipedia.
              Wikibooks is about writing books. That is it should be at some point like the tangible dead-tree paper books that we grew up reading through school and libraries. This implies chapter organization, appendicies, prefaces, and other structures commonly found in books. An excellent example of this is with FHSST Physics:Index or Blender 3D: Noob to Pro, both BTW Wikibooks of the month. Each book module is not something that stands alone, but rather something that builds on previous modules. That is why it is a book and not a bunch of articles. I don't see this kind of organization at all with this Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter, but rather something lifted straight out of Wikipedia as a bunch of disconnected articles. --Rob Horning 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
              • So what is it that you have been trying to get at with all this discussion? Are you holding this argument just because Tesla got deleted so swiftly? I can't really follow what you want to do anymore. You link to Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not but I don't see anything in there against this book. I am going to ask around Wikipedia and see if people will support a Transwiki to Wikibooks. I see the books you linked above being very similar to the Muggles' Guide. I'm not sure how to present to you how the Guide is both like a book and very useful. The structure is like a book, the articles form a coherent mass about the storyline, etc. Wikibooks editors agree the Guide looks very similar to other Wikibooks. You can't deny this book on its design when it is 2-3 days old either. I believe you may not know or care about the storyline to know how to structure it or what it can become. Anyway, this page is getting long. I'm getting warnings on size. Can an admin step in to maybe archive, branch things, or make a decision? Maybe you should wait on preaching this stance and work on helping develop the Wikibooks policy more. I didn't think VFD votes were the place for that. There is concensus except for your remarks which seem more suited for a policy discussion page rather than a book's VFD where many agree the book has validity. -Matt 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
                • Read the WB:WIN. This wikibook is a Macropedia, which has always been specifically prohibited from Wikibooks. You might find counter examples here on Wikibooks, but perhaps they need to go as well. If this is a book, as it originally was pointed out, it should feel like a book. Other Wikibooks projects have been able to do that. From my viewpoint, this looks more like Memory Alpha but with a twist for Harry Potter. That is my definition of a Macropedia, and should not be on Wikibooks. This is not annotated text, which would be illegal, so it shouldn't be called such. In addition, and I'll say it again if I have to, this is a fork of Wikipedia content and neither you nor Uncle G have convinced me that it is anything but that as well. That is two strikes against this project from my viewpoint. As a macropedia, it belongs on Wikicities or Wikipedia. That is not my call to decide where, but I can complain about it being here on Wikibooks, and I am. In terms of "concensus" I got the current vote at 2 to keep and 1 to delete, with a whole bunch of people from Wikipedia that came to crash the party, but I guess we can count your vote to keep as well, together with Uncle G (inferred from comments but hasn't voted). The other two votes I consider "sock puppets", or at least not relevant as they havn't really studied Wikibooks policies nor made any edits besides on this voting area. In addition, admins aren't supposed to go strictly on votes but on the quality of the arguments, wheither it really violates Wikibooks policies, and how much damage a Wikibook could bring to the community as a whole. I accept your disagreement, but respect the fact that I don't agree with you. --Rob Horning 03:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
                  • I still believe that you don't see the abilities of what the book can do, but hopefully time will show you. I understand how you see this as becoming a Macropedia, which is not the goal. You surely must see this at least as being an instructional resource and a place for analysis. I don't think this VFD should be about the structure of the book since it is so new (isn't the vote about it being useful? I'm all for instruction on how to structure things and how to write the book in a Wikibooks-acceptable way). The plots book can just as well be deleted since it has gone towards a greater good now. The Muggles' Guide however I see as having much potential. Could you point out out how the Guide should be more like a book? By what I see, it can just be restructured. I'd really like to stay inside the WikiMedia project system with this book. Wikibooks provides many useful connections to other projects. One thing I worry about is the Transwiki of content to the book from Wikipedia. As I see it, both Wikipedia and Wikibooks may contain some similar information; for instance, character biographies. That should be in a book yet still has encyclopaedic value. What happens in a case like this? I really think a book should be written on this subject and a lot of Wikipedia information should be in the book and not there, but I feel that most people see Wikipedia as the place for everything and will try to rewrite the content there. Maybe your response should start at the bottom of this VFD thread because these sublists are getting hard to find. Please give instruction though (admins too hopefully) on where this book should go to stay. Let's not wipe it because of faults when it can be changed to be great. -Matt 12:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Neutral - I'm removing my objections to this Wikibook mainly because I think it was posted on the VfD list way too prematurely. I'm going to stand guard to see that doesn't happen again here. --Rob Horning 14:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • To the admins, when can these books' VFDs be decided? It seems to have received a great deal of positive commentary from users and other administrators. All votes are Keep or Strong Keep with only one Strong Delete. Hasn't a concensus been reached? Most of the discussion here has been about how excellent the book is going to become and how the implementation is coming along. It's an eyesore to have the VFD sitting around when this vote looks like it's received five times as much voting as other articles on this page. -Matt 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Wikibooks tends to take quite a bit more time to resolve issues, unlike Wikipedia. A discussion like this that takes a month or two is normal on Wikibooks, so don't get too excited if it lasts here for awhile before getting archived. Just be assured that with the favorable commentary (particularly from veteran Wikibookians) listed above that it will not likely be deleted. Keep contributing and proving the nay-sayers wrong, and you don't have to worry about the content going away. --Rob Horning 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Per the policy, the lag time is one week, so the discussion may be closed any time on or after 2005-08-06. Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
      • What policy? Where? How come that hasn't been enforced? That may be Wikipedia policy, but Wikibooks certainly is not beholden to doing what Wikipedia always does. Like I said, it tends to take more time to get things done on Wikibooks, so please be patient. There really isn't a policy of any kind right now on Wikibooks, to be honest, certainly one that has been agreed upon by Wikibookians. --Rob Horning 17:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
        • From the deletion policy page: After one week, if the voters have mostly reached a consensus about what to do, the appropriate action will be taken by an administrator. If not the voting may continue until a consensus is reached. This part of the policy is not clearly defined, and needs to be sorted out. I would say a concensus has been formed since you are the only dissenter towards a Keep. Hopefully on August 6 this page will be determined Keep and archived. -Matt 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
          • By practice and custom (rather than what is on this page that was merely copied from Wikipedia), it does take much longer than that for something to occur here on Wikibooks. That is what I'm trying to point out. And it seems as though you are trying to force the issue. Besides, that "policy" certainly hasn't had any sort of formal vote on Wikibooks, unless you can show that vote to me. I'm just trying to tell you to "chill out" and not stress over trying to make immediate decisions on Wikibooks, particularly when it appears as though you are new to this project. --Rob Horning 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Why would past practice mean this book's VFD needs to take months? I surely hope Wikibookians don't just let things sit for kicks. If the point has been made, why not make a decision? This VFD was started by a user who has only come here to nominate it for VFD. I and the others speaking here plan to do work at Wikibooks. I have intentions to develop the Guide. I'd like to get down to it and get this issue over with. -Matt 01:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
              • It is because we are usually trying to sit down to actually write a book, which answering all these points is keeping me from doing so. Most Wikibookians are wrapped up in their little project, and it takes even more time to come up for politics than it noramlly does for Wikipedia. I'll say it again..... Don't force the issue. You are the one who is new here, and besides, I'm still arguing my point. As far as I'm conerned, the "7-day" grace period clock you are talking about has been reset to today and right now. --Rob Horning 03:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep — this appears to be a good home for this content, hopefully the formatting as Wikibooks will continue, it's good to get the chance to vote to keep for a change.;) Geo.T 01:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the decision is keep, please delete Harry Potter plots and subpages; they simply replicate the Muggles' guide book section. I created Harry Potter plots and I agree with its move to the Muggles' guide. I don't believe anything links to Harry Potter plots, so a redirect would be a waste. — 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree. The plots page has been made obsolete now. -Matt 13:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Whats going on here? I just linked to a harry Potter article on wikibooks from pedia and find that what has just been deleted from pedia is now being threatened with deletion on books. is this a plot? If the people who allowed it to be removed in the first place had been told it would be totally deleted would they have agreed? Anyway, I don't see why you want to delete references to one of the most popular books of all time. Did no one notice the number of people who are interested in this? Sandpiper 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (see also user sandpiper on pedia)
    • Much controversy has come from which domain the content is really suited for. It needs to fit the goals of Wikibooks to stay here. I think a concensus has been reached that this book is a Keep since adequate proof has been shown that this book does not desire to become a Macropedia and will really provide useful commentary/analysis. -Matt 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • STRONG KEEP for the Book, delete for the wikipedia plot synopses. All superdetail should be in the book and the encyclopedia should be kept encyclopedia. however the book itself should definitely be kept, it's great, i want to read it!
  • Further Comment. Ok, I have read this lot twice now and have some better idea what is going on. I also wrote some items into the 'book' in the style I felt like writing them. I fear there is not enough interest here for anyone to start discussing them, but I think on pedia they would be deleted in 30 seconds. A faction in pedia does not like analysis. I find this regrettable since in the context of a work of fiction there is inevitably going to be insufficient information for cast-iron conclusions. I think they are wrong in refusing to allow such stuff in pedia as I think joe public would want to read an article which told him the best available information, even if it was not cast iron fact. Similarly, I do not really see why they have become so averse to detailed plot synopsis. This is a publishing phenomenon being discussed here. It merits long articles. I am not an encyclopaedic purist and find both these things useful in the correct context.
Now, on the other hand, I can see there is enough material here to create a book about these books. JKR has spent an awful lot of time creating a set of books which are deviously inter-related yet extremely honest in the information they present to a reader. They repay careful study, and this does not come across at all in what is being permitted on pedia. It is also extremely hard to obtain on the internet generally, where there are a vast number of repetitious posts about interesting aspects of Harry Potter, but little definitively organised stuff. The same arguments recur repeatedly, so are hardly any more 'original research', but are not collected well anywhere. Organisation of the pedia articles is also a mess. Mostly i think this lot all belongs together somewhere, splitting it onto two sites is daft, and someone needs to knock some heads together. At the moment 'pedia very much has a head start in creating their harry Potter content. Which is not to say that 'books could not nick it, reformat it, and reproduce it in a better way. This would produce something which seems to me very akin to your posted definition of a 'macropedia'. Though i do not see why a book entitled 'everything you wanted to know about physics', would not also fit the definition of macropedia as an 'in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic'. But I can see people on here complaining precisely the opposit of what is being said in 'pedia'. There they will not allow analysis, you will not allow archived facts. 'jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean.....' Lets hope for a happy ending here too.Sandpiper 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC) Kept - Please STOP voting, and continue your discussions in the relevant talk page. Thankyou. - Aya T C 02:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

AnukulGita, Satyanusaran, Thakurdivine

Sounds like the material contained within is better for Wikisource as it seems to fail the guidelines for annotated texts. KelvSYC 03:31, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)Taking these one at a time:-
  • Thakurdivine seems to be a much more fleshed out version of w:Thakur Anukulchandra. I think it contains more information than is appropriate for a Wikipedia article, so by all rights it does belong here. It is a bad name for a book, however. It could be renamed to Biography of Thakur Anukulchandra or similar then linked from the Wikipedia article as a valid Wikibook.
Comments? - Aya 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC) Please do not delete, i will make necessary changes. Yes, Thakurdivine is a biography of Thakur Anukulchandra, i will rename it.
Thanks, Sawant V EIn the past, there has been some confusion regarding the status of biographies. I shall leave this until it's sorted out. - Aya T C 00:37, 6 August 2005 (UTC) Deleted old pages. - Aya T C 02:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


...and pages it directly links to.
This has no indication of scope, and looks like a bunch of links to some Wikipedia-esque articles, and other junk. - Aya T C 01:41, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree that the scope of this is more a Macropedia and shouldn't be here. I would like to get some input from User:Daniel575 (the last person to put meaningful content in this Wikibook...and that was just to add a category), but that isn't strictly necessary. All the rest of the edits seem to be from anonymous users. Well meaning, but this doesn't really belong on Wikibooks. Transwiki to Wikipedia or merge with similar Wikipedia articles? --Rob Horning 09:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete — appears to belong on Wikipedia, therefore, transwiki and merge with existing content. Geo.T 01:20, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - I transwikied the only substantial text to w:Talk:Clinical depression - Aya T C 01:41, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Was added as copyvio at 19:09, 26 July 2005 by Kellen of the page:
According to current policy we're supposed to still list it here, and allow one week for the author to prove they have permission before fragging it. Does this make sense? - Aya T C 01:54, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
*Yes and no - It is possible that they do have permission, but haven't yet mentioned it on the page (usually they simply don't have permission, however). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 23:18, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unless permission is proven (relatively soon). Kellen T 03:53, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • delete as Kellen said. GeoT 12:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
  • (not voting) I've seen other web sites copying from wikibooks before. It appears that the given web site accepts user submissions, and could well have accepted a submission from the same author as wikibooks has. Our original version matches, which is not a good sign. If the other site's URL means June 1st 2002, then it is older. AlbertCahalan 08:05, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - I think it is June 1st 2002, so I've deleted it. - Aya T C 00:35, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A survival guide for people with Asperger syndrome and A survival guide for people on the autistic spectrum

Both are virtually exact copies if the work of Marc Segar, A survival guide for people with Asperger syndrome. He was was sadly killed in a traffic accident in 1997. Recently, his work has been distributed around the internet. Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that those who manage his estate have released the text under a free licence. So, it appears to be a copyright violation to include the text on any Wikimedia project. Wikisource would have been the most appropriate place for it. The text can be found in many places, here are two: [1] [2] (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- if the rights exist, transwiki it to wikisource. MShonle 21:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Regardless of whether or not it was a copyvio, these pages were all part of a book filled with people's PhD papers, which is exactly the sort of primary research which aren't allowed on any Wikimedia wiki. - Aya T C 01:23, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Partially translated (to Spanish) orphaned page. KelvSYC 17:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Very little work has been done, and it has been lying around for ages. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 23:11, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - As it is a complete duplicate of Algebra:Arithmetic (except for the minor spanish translation) I agree that this should go. es:Álgebra Lineal is at least in a small way trying to do a job like this, but I don't even feel comfortable doing a trans-wiki to the Spanish Wikibooks with what little is here. --Rob Horning 11:17, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Aya T C 01:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

AP Macroeconomics and AP Microeconomics

Both of these Wikibooks were started by the same person, and havn't shown any progress toward becoming a Wikibook. Basically, these are stubs that were started by what appears to be a new Wikibookian and never went anywhere, and never got put on a bookshelf. --Rob Horning 08:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Almost six months, and no progress. It doesn't look like it will ever become an instructional resource. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Aya T C 01:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


Apparent fork of Esperanto contrary to WB:FP, but has not been worked on since January. KelvSYC 04:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I concur with the statement above. --Rob Horning 11:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete I agree. Geo.T 12:25, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Aya T C 01:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Jokebook:Russian jokes

Most of jokes will not be understood here. And it's currents have nothing to do with jokes. --Divinity 07:34, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is a fork of w:Russian joke with some 'jokes' attached, the first of which appears to be a quote from Websters's Biographical Dictionary. I don't speak russian, so I can't tell what the other things are, so perhaps they should be transwikied to's equivalent of Jokebook to see if they think they're funny or not. - Aya 8 July 2005 17:11 (UTC)
  • Delete - Being russian, I understand these jokes, but even in translation they aren't really funny. The part describing what Russian jokes are is valid though. Yuzzaa 23 July 2005 16:33 (UTC)
  • I saw far better Russian jokes on w:Russian joke; perhaps these could be copied over? If not, then I would vote for Delete. Alex.Szatmary
  • Delete - This is an attempt to fork from Wikipedia, and not a good one either. This page is also drawing quite a bit of vandalism (and no reverts to kill it either). --Rob Horning 13:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Replace with samples from w:Russian joke - people from Wikipedia often unknowingly abuse that article to add their favourites, I would link here from Wikipedia, so those jokes would go here. As for current content I think that is just some prank (no jokes to speak of). I know a couple more jokes to add, many jokes could be pulled out of oblivion in Wikipedia article's history - so please keep this section. w:User:Gnomz007 from Wikipedia 18:27, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I would further suggest that Wikiquote may be a more appropriate place to put some of these one-lineer jokes...particularly if they can be attributed to either traditional Russian folklore or some specific Russian. Somehow it just doesn't seem appropriate to have a jokebook like this as a textbook. --Rob Horning 08:24, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Aya T C 00:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


  • This book needs one of two things - content or deletion. User:MeMoria has only put on a title and contents page. He is a computing student (see user page) and so would be the ideal person to rectify this. Charlie123 04:36, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: No substantial content. w:Samba software is far more informative. - Aya 8 July 2005 17:16 (UTC)
  • Delete Kellen 05:26, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I have added some content and will add more later, I think it would be a great tutorial if people got involved. The Wikipedia article is for a definition, not to show you how to use the program.--Bryant 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is just a stub for what could be a major topic here at Wikibooks. There should be a separate discussion on what constitues a "stub", and what the fate of a stub ought to be, which should take place at the Staff lounge There are plenty of blatant violations of Wikibooks policies that simply being a stub shouldn't be a reason to kill a Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 12:48, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Bryant on this Wikipedia is for definitions and Wikibooks tutorials
Klingoncowboy4 19:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Kept - Despite my vote to the contrary. This may evolve into a good guide, and from experience, samba could really use one. :-). It can be renominated later if necessary - Aya T C 00:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)Oops, I didn't see that there. This page is getting quite long. ;) I'm of the opinion that I shouldn't vote where a consensus has already been established (i.e., two existing votes either way), unless that changes (as it did in this case). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:13, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


This is probably a copyright violation, because the author states that the original text was from (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:43, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)I'm the copyright holder for that text and I'm the one that posted it here. I'm also the manager of the group where it was originally posted. What should I do to keep it here? - Hekatee Well, you need to prove to us that you are who you say you are; just email me at [3] and say "hi Wikibooks can use our content" or whatever and I'll confirm it here. Just to be all official and whatnot. GarrettTalk 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC) And what does that prove? The SMTP protocol is easily subverted. I can send you an email which looks like it's from Bill Gates himself. - Aya T C 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Explaining your situation should be enough :) Greenman 8 July 2005 12:40 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is a fork of w:gnosticism. Should be merged in there until the point where there's enough content to justfy a whole book on the subject. - Aya 8 July 2005 17:30 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep pending expansion. I agree with Aya that this has less info than the Wikipedia page, but if the group is going to work on it together it could grow into a fascinating resource--look at how the San Andreas guide expanded due to GameFAQs input. However if you're not planning on making a vast book (or, at least, an book superior in depth to the WP article) you might consider taking things to the Wikipedia entry; then when it gets too fat it can spill out back to here :) GarrettTalk 22:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Fair enough, but if a user plans to write a whole book for which there is an existing Wikipedia article, they should at least ensure it contains all the information in that article. The easiest way is to fork from Wikipedia, and clearly mark the article as having a corresponding Wikibook on the subject. Oddly enough, the GTA:SA books doesn't have all the info from the Wikipedia article. Perhaps this should be corrected? - Aya T C 18:20, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - The poster has indicated that he no longer wishes this content to remain in the page's talk page. - Aya T C 01:16, 6 August 2005 (UTC)


Original comment (and made to be a speedly deletion):This page is not good for a young children's textbook. Not only will it confuse little children, few adults will have heard of them, and therefore may the book's usefulness. It just plain undermines the project.
  • I'll go with delete. Good article for Wikipedia, though! --Member 4 July 2005 22:22 (UTC)
Say whaaat? it undermines the project to list cool, unusual information? Sj 08:08, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) Name one book for children that talks about them.--Naryathegreat|(talk) 02:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it. This shouldn't be deleted, or it certainly needs to have wider input before the deletion occurs, perhaps reworking the content into another Wikijunior article about cross-breeding in general. This Wikibook (Wikijunior Big Cats) has been relatively inactive for some time, so if deletion occurs, please wait a little bit longer than normal to kill it so the content can be properly adapted, and put a warning on the Big Cats talk page that deletion is going to occur in xx days.Rob Horning
  • Keep (assuming it's accurate). m:Wikijunior defines the targeted age range for the project to be 8-11 years. I think kids of that age would find it funny, not confusing. At that age, simple puns and word-play are quite appealing, and this forms a good method of teaching. Besides even if "few adults" have heard of it, so what? They're far more apathetic and ignorant than many kids anyway. Perhaps Wikijunior books should define their target age range on their main page (the meta page is somewhat vague about this), otherwise it's going to be considerably more difficult to say for certain whether the content is appropriate or not. - Aya 8 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)
  • Keep - Since the page isn't vandalism or blatantly false, keeping or deleting should be up to wikijunior contributors alone. Kellen 05:22, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - this is an interesting topic. It should be distinct from normal big cats, but I think it is something that could really be enjoyed by the readers
  • Keep, but reword - Most little kids would probably not understand some of the words used in there ("hybrid", "fertile", "dwarfism", etc.). --MichTheWeird 17:47, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
Kept - Aya T C 01:19, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

1911 wikipedia

This is a book that is primarily source material, not any original composition. Based on the comments of Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not, this should be moved over to Wikisource and deleted here. Honestly, it would be a perfect candidate for Wikisource.Rob Horning 20:16, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • I'll have to go with delete due to it being not a source of instructional material. KelvSYC 4 July 2005 07:52 (UTC)
  • Keep: I think its best to put it in Wikibooks for now. --Member 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)
    • Ok, maybe I should put the proofread original version at wikisource and keep a updated version here at wikibooks.
  • Delete-belongs in Wikisource--Alsocal 5 July 2005 00:24 (UTC)

I've added a comment at the Scriptorium at Wikisource (their version of the Staff Lounge or Water Cooler) to try and help move this effort over. I don't want to offend anybody, but Wikibooks is not the place to do this properly. Rob Horning 5 July 2005 06:55 (UTC)Due to discussion at the Scriptorium, a whole new Wikiproject has been created at Wikisource, with a fairly sizable workgroup at that. All relevant content has been moved to places within that project, so what is left here at Wikibooks is going to get stale very quickly. Links in Wikipedia (there are a few over there to this project) are going to be moved to Wikisource relative soon. Rob Horning 13:25, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
  • This should be deleted. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia, Wikisource is for PD or GFDL source documents. The old version should be in 'source, while an updated version of articles could be in the 'pedia. Eitherway, the current content violates Wikibooks:what Wikibooks is not. Gentgeen 7 July 2005 06:42 (UTC)
  • Delete: Should be transwikied. - Aya 8 July 2005 18:08 (UTC)
All previous links to this project have been deleted except at the main w:Encyclopædia Britannica page. That would be trivial to get rid of, and it looks like Member has gone over to help out at Wikisource as well. It is time to delete this page now as well as all associated modules. The Wikiproject at wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica is going quite strong now. --Rob Horning 17:40, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Has been transwikied. - Serge 08:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Confirmed transwiki. It's actually expanded significantly on Wikisource. Should be a great addition. - Aya T C 01:31, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Cookbook:Wild Rice Blueberry Dessert etc

There is still a {{vfd}} banner on these. They appear to have been voted for deletion. (see archive). Did they escape the attention of an admin? Kellen 00:44, 27 July 2005 (UTC)For users who can't be bothered to check the archived entry, they were deemed copyright violations from the following URLs respectively, and should be deleted ASAP: Aya T C 16:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC) Deleted - Copyvio - Aya T C 01:40, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Physical puzzles

It was deleted before, and the page that's reappeared in its place is just as out of place. The page is a part of the Puzzles book, the point of which is to present puzzles for the reader to solve, not to give vague descriptions of kinds of puzzles. The current page is really nothing more than a dictionary definition, which might be appropriate for Wiktionary or (to some extent) Wikipedia if it weren't for the fact that the definition is wrong, but certainly not as a page of a puzzle book.
Until someone has actually come up with some physical puzzles to present here in the Wikibook, this page ought to go. And even when this is done, it probably ought to be renamed to Puzzles:Physical puzzles. -- Smjg 16:15, 20 May 2005 (UTC)I can find no evidence that this has been deleted before, thus it is not a speedy candidate. Can we have some more votes on this please? - Aya T C 21:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Effectively the same concept as w:jigsaw puzzle, and it contains far less information than that artice. - Aya 8 July 2005 16:02 (UTC)
  • Delete - This is just a stub, so it is hard to even see where the anonymous writer even wanted to go with this Wikibook. This information should have been done as a Wikipedia article, and perhaps that was the original intention. I don't even see a need to transwiki this one. --Rob Horning 11:59, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - nothing there worth keeping - Aya T C 00:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Monopoly (and redirect Monopoly strategy guide)

This appears to be copyrighted material. I am not objecting to the content itself, but to the copyright status. Somewhere in the middle of the content it says "This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License." From this, it appears to be simply a reposting of an old version of the Wikipedia Monopoly page. In short, I think it should be killed.Rob Horning 12:17, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: this is just a data dump from another URL. Simply add that URL to w:Monopoly (game)#External links - Aya 8 July 2005 17:57 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete as WP textdump--This article is copied from an article on It's just been dumped from a mirror of WP, by the looks of things. Certainly I think a Monopoly guide could make a fine Wikibook, but right now this is just a Wikipedia dump. Master Thief Garrett 9 July 2005 01:29 (UTC)
Deleted. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 06:49, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

GPG Signing Party

Doesn't look much like a Wikibook to me, but more like an attempt to use the site as a social forum for exchanging encryption keys. - Aya T C 00:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I swear there ought to be some sort of policy against doing this somewhere on a Wikimedia project page (digging through notes) not that I can find one. This is borderline vandalism, or at least certainly is not something that I would throw up, particularly on how small the keys are as listed. This has no redeeming value as a textbook or even something that you would want to publish and throw on a newsstand. --Rob Horning 08:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
    • You're likely thinking of Wikipedia is not a free host or webspace provider. Doubtless we need a similar policy here, or at least a link to theirs. ...and you actually keep notes on wikis? Hm, that's an idea, I just turn my user page into a dumping ground... :) GarrettTalk 10:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
      • We used to have, almost word-for-word, that very policy. It got somewhat obscured by the refactoring of the policy page. But Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not still says that "Wikibooks may not be used as a personal homepage or online file storage.". Uncle G 11:36:54, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a book nor ever likely to be. GarrettTalk 10:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: But perhaps this could be a wikicity project instead! MShonle 14:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep/Move/Transwiki This is a wikimania page, it is one of the wikimania workshops. We were told to put the workshop page on wikibooks. If this is not the correct location, please elucidate! (and sorry about causing any trouble) Note that you cannot exchange encryption keys on the net, you have to do it IRL :-) en:User:Kim Bruning / 17:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
Moved to Wikimania05/GPG Signing Party and deleted. After having spoken to Kim, it seems this was supposed to be a part of that.

Making an Island

The reason givin was that it was not going to be useful to anyone. I can see how one may think that it may be of no use to anyone but there are people who have done this and there are going to be more. I think that the admin didn't think that it would be useful to anyone because he did not know anyone who would take such a chance making one. Most of the people i tell about it find it very interesting and want to create their own independent nation using it. You could say it's a niche book meant for only the few people who are interested in doing it.
  • Keep: It's been done before surely their are people who will do it again.--V2os 19:47, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see any reason why it can't stay, it is an instructional resource, and not every book is useful to everyone. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 03:47, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The only reason this should even be here on this page is to act as a reminder that even if you don't like the content, that is not a reason to delete it. This certainly should not have been a Speedy delete. --Rob Horning 05:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I have no problems with this page, and even though it's not something I'm ever likely to need, it's still quite interesting nonetheless. - Aya T C 16:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep of course. MShonle 18:02, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: wadaya mean "not going to be useful to anyone"!? I'm using it to design blueprints right now. Do I not count? --Shdwninja8 04:21, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep but make it better - This wikibook is written soooo poorly. It's all stream-of-thought and very clearly written using a 30 minute television spot. And I have to question, has this person actually made an island? Is the information here acurate? -- 14:32, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not allowed to vote. KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I've looked at this topic on and off for a few years... Over this time I've made loads of notes. I've removed all the stuff that is not my own work and linked them as an external link. Feel free to rape them to your hearts content. Darkflib 14:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I'm interested in seeing this book develop further. A chapter on existing independent islands would be interesting... --Azertus 18:45, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep A book on quantum mechanics isn't very usefull for most people either (Common, how many of you would actualy know a use for it), but that doesn't take away many people are intrested in the material. Why should a book on artifical islands not be allowed then? --Patrik 12:30, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This book could be used by writers who need to know how islands can be built, so they'd be sure that their stories show the processes and conditions in a realistic manner.--StarryTG 17:32, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This book has potential. Besides I may want to build an Island someday and this would make and excelent source on how to do it.
Klingoncowboy4 19:48, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I want to build my own island in future, because I want to become a president of a country. 10:11, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not allowed to vote KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Appears to be a Wikipedia fork. KelvSYC 04:59, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - this is not a book, nor looks like it will ever get that way. Written as a wikipedia article. Rob Horning 7 July 2005 13:32 (UTC)
Transwikied to w:Talk:Oh Yeah! Cartoons#Transwiki from - Aya T C 21:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Gandhi-King Season

Orphaned original-research-in-training. KelvSYC 04:55, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Contains no meaningful information - Aya 8 July 2005 16:16 (UTC)
  • Delete ditto aya. Kellen 05:25, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I totally agree with Aya on this one. --Rob Horning 03:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Aya T C 21:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Mathematicsforsignalprocessing and Mathematicsforsignalprocessing:affichesimple

Those two modules have been selected as candidates to deletion by me and by misctake, sorry for the authors.
  • keep I'm one of the authors and those pages ae definitely usefull, at least for french people interested in mixing signal processing and statistics.
  • But, as a book in French, it does not belong in the English wikibooks - this should be transwikied. Also, sign your name so we know who you are. KelvSYC 20:34, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep, but transwiki it over to the French wikibooks. (Note to whoever put up the deletion notice: You need to provide reasons why you want it to be deleted, it means nothing at all if you put something up for deletion without any valid concern.) MShonle 22:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Marked for transwiki to - Aya T C 21:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior Big Cats/Caracal

Is a copyvio of [4]. Isomorphic 03:48, 21 May 2005 (UTC)I think they're considered small cats, anyway, so a caracal page should probably not go there, to begin with. - Bulbaboy 04:23, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it I don't see what the issue is about small vs. large cats, and such a discussion should happen anyway within the Talk:Wikijunior Big Cats page rather than here. If there is consensus that it is inappropriate to the overall objectives of that Wikibook, I would agree to delete it. That discussion hasn't taken place, so this request to delete this page is inappropriate. The copyright violation should be legitimately deleted, but that doesn't mean this article shouldn't exist. Rob Horning 6 July 2005 12:43 (UTC)
I think the important point here is that the copyrighted material is still available from this site simply by requesting a previous revision of the article, and this is still a violation of copyright. This would be cured by deleting the article, and starting a fresh one. An even neater solution would be to merely delete the offending revisions from the DB. This is possible in CVS, but I don't know enough about the MediaWiki DB structure to know if it's possible). - Aya 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
  • Delete, or remove the offending revisions only (see above). Also there is nothing substantial on this page right now, so it may be worth getting this sorted out before there is. - Aya 8 July 2005 16:11 (UTC)
  • Delete if copyvio, otherwise leave up to wikijunior contributors. Kellen 05:24, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
Is is possible to delete only a page in the history (in this case of the copyright violation)? The stub seems to be just fine, and the copyright violation is no longer present. The main Wikijunior Big Cats article does have a link to this page. It would be easy to recreate anyway, so it is of no major importants, nor to preserve edit history so far. --Rob Horning 17:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC) Deleted offending revisions only - Didn't know if it was possible, but it is. :-) - Aya T C 21:08, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


Originally added as a speedy deletion at 12:58, 29 July 2005 by Master Thief Garrett with the reason "Fragment of a book that was never fully wikified", but I figured it might be controversial, so added it to vfd. It looks more like it ought to go in Wikisource. Comments? - Aya T C 02:04, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Keep But keep working on it Klingoncowboy4 19:55, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Transwiki it to Wikisource, it doesn't belong here. (And, too bad more of it is not done.) MShonle 21:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki - It would be great to see more of it. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 23:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wikisource. This is precisely what should be over there (even with blank links to future content). --Rob Horning 11:23, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Now transwikied. I didn't think there was enough there to bother with, but upon further inspection I couldn't find signs of a "don't send us your junk!" mentality on Wikisource like there is on WP! :) I've also copied the image to Commons so that can be deleted too. GarrettTalk 12:06, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Deleted - Confirmed transfer to Wikisource - Aya T C 20:55, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Web crawler

This module fits in Wikipedia article.--Popski 09:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, not part of a book. Gentgeen 7 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)
  • Delete This is not even made as a book, nor does it lend itself to become a book. It is more formatted as a Wikipedia entry, and a stub at that. Rob Horning 7 July 2005 13:26 (UTC)
  • Delete. Actually merge with the Wikipeda entry, then delete, since it contains less information than the Wikipedia entry. If someone wants to fork the article from Wikipedia, restructure into a book and pad it out, then I'm all for it. Aya 8 July 2005 15:53 (UTC)
Deleted - Has been transwikied into the Wikipedia article's talk page. - Aya T C 20:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

21 Century Math

This is original research in progress and, therefore, not eligible for Wikibooks. Additionally, the content is presented so incoherently that it's difficult to demonstrate how unsound it is. - Inkling 04:11, 22 July 2005 (UTC)FYI it seems to be sourced from Personally I found it somewhat difficult to decipher the contents of that site. It seems to be more like a set of personal notes by the author, rather than anything your average user could understand. It almost feels more like the rantings of a madman, since it doesn't detail any practical benefits of this alleged new mathematical method. Consequently, it doesn't seem the sort of work that other Wikibooks users would have any means to contribute to, and thus is rather pointless to put here. If the author wishes to work on it alone in a subpage of his user page to get it in a meaningful state before allowing others to contribute, that ought to be allowed, but there has been no input from the author since April 26, so perhaps we should consider it obsolete. - Aya T C 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - Of no use to anyone other than the author. - Aya T C 16:00, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it becomes an actual book. It's been 3 months without any contributions to the stub. Kellen 01:24, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - for all the reasons listed above... - Serge 08:41, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - This appears to simply be a "stealth" ad for content on another website. The content for this would be appropriate on Wikibooks, but there doesn't appear to be any effort to put it here, and a simple mirror of content already appearing elsewhere (even if it is GFDL content) is totally inappropriate. The original research distinction is an issue too, although a coherant strategy for teaching mathmatical concepts would be useful to Wikibooks readers. --Rob Horning 12:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
    • "stealth ad" is exactly the phrase I had in mind, but I'm just too polite to mention it. :-) - Aya T C 18:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - I agree entirely. I came across it just the other day, as it is mentioned on one of the more sensible looking algebra entries. It is original research; it has had a number of additions made by the person who is doing that research. -MarkHudson 11:27, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Computer Science:Advanced Data Structures and Algorithms

Keep temporarily until the main module material can be re=written into separate books. I am sympathetic to anyone whose effort is marked for deletion since I facing that senario myself. The material belongs in Wikibooks. However, split the article content into suitable categories. Data Structures is a gigantic topic, related to types of objects conceptually similar to Data Bases but more ephemeral in terms of content. Algorithms also a huge topic, more computational in nature. Both ought to be covered by separate articles. The word "advanced" may be misleading in this context. Newbies need to be directed to Sandbox and have welcome guides similar to Wikipedia. AlMac 14:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)You misunderstand. The speedy was added to the talk page to indicate that is the problem (it's filled with newbie-spam). The main page is fine. Your best course of action is to remove this section from VfD. - Aya 14:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC) I've deleted the talk page, which had no other content than a newbian experiment. For the record, there are some intro-level Computer Science:Data Structures and Computer Science:Algorithms books that are more mature (or, at least far more than just an outline; but the writing process takes a very long time). The idea behind the advanced book is that a lot of people wanted to post about their favorite, random algorithm or data structure that wouldn't really have a place for an intro book, which was intended to be read in a single semester. Rather than turn away good sumbissions, they would be put into a more reference based book that could assume the fundamentals. MShonle 15:30, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

How To Eat

This is MichTheWeird's only real contribution to Wikibooks. It's supposed to be a parody of Wikibooks, just it's not very funny. It's inappropriate for Wikibooks, because it acts like a spam magnet. I have not marked it for speedy deletion, because the author has asked for it not to be deleted. But, I'm interested in the opinion of other Wikibookians. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 23:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - Agreed that it is not funny and thus not a particularly good parody. It should get moved into the Jokebook IMO as a subsection if the author/others think it has some value. Kellen 01:39, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename to Jokebook/How To Eat - A parody of Wikibooks or similar. It should certainly not stay where it is. That page should be reserved for a serious book on the subject (if such a thing could even exist). I think making it clear that it is meant to be a parody from the outset, might make it funnier. It's just confusing in its current form. Hopefully its humour potential will improve over time. As long as the author continues development, I see no reason to delete it. - Aya T C 02:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

How Life Began

Appears to be a copy of Thomas F. Heinze's copyrighted work, a copy can be found at It also violates Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not in many ways. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Speedy Delete - Because this was the first (and only) contribution by User:Scientia, as well as duplication of copyrighted material with no mention of attribution (not reason to delete by itself) or permission (a good reason to delete). In addtion, it was added in March 2005. If this was to be a stub for more material, it should have been expanded upon. ---Rob Horning 17:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

The tale of Tûguan

This appears to be fiction by Wikibooks is not the place for it, see Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not. What does everyone else think? (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 23:54, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Kellen 01:40, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Clear violation of the fundamental policy that "Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks". It is not a 'textbook' in any sense of the word, other than the literal "a book containing text". - Aya T C 03:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete - Again, this is clear fiction. Sorry, but these are the rules... Serge 10:28, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

How To Build A Pykrete Bong

User added a Speedy Delete tag to this page and requested it to be deleted. Given that the content obviously took some effort to put together, is not vulgar, and is instructional (even though in a potentially illegal area), I have changed it from a Speedy Delete to a VfD. I have no personal comments on whether this should be kept. - Lynx7725 7 July 2005 04:44 (UTC)
  • Keep This page does not seek to offend anyone. It offers correct, factual information. If someone has a personal problem with it, then they should simply ignore it, or edit the page and add a warning, etc. Any legal problems should be minor, as each person in their respective juristictions can make their own choices. Free speech should prevail. Abc123.
  • Keep I moved the majority of this text from Wikipedia (where it does not belong) to here and formatted it. I do not see any reason why it should be deleted. Additionally it serves as a safe and easy to construct alternative to the other home made bongs listed on the w:bong article. Additionally I do not see anything inherently illegal in the article. Triddle 7 July 2005 17:46 (UTC)
  • Keep It's nonsense to delete. If this article was entitled How to Build a Coffee machine would it even be considered for deletion? Certain countries laws notwithstanding, it's a perfectly reasonable set of instructions. Greenman 8 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)
  • Keep The article itself is not illegal; it is also well-written and informative. Charlie123 8 July 2005 12:50 (UTC)
  • Keep: Don't see the problem. - Aya 8 July 2005 18:11 (UTC)
  • Keep. I doubt I need to vote too, but I might as well. :) Just as How to search P2P networks wouldn't be technically illegal, neither is this. While I cannot think of a non-cannibis use for such a device, it's still fascinating info! But, ultimately, it's what you choose to do with the knowledge that's the problem. And, as said before, at least we're offering interested parties the safest (and no doubt clearest) construction method. Master Thief Garrett 9 July 2005 02:04 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nothing wrong with this article.-- 01:17, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: It does contain infomation about a controlled substance which is illegal.-- Masterjamie 19:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Don't know whether the quality/tone/length are up to standard (I'm not a regular WikiBooks user) but it certainly shouldn't be deleted for its subject. -- Pete Verdon 20:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Cookbook:Native American cuisine and two others

This looks like a page full of copyright violations. I suppose a rewrite of the procedures would solve the problem, at least as far as USA copyright law is concerned. If nobody wants to bother though, I think these recipes need to go.
The Cookbook:Blue Corn-Pinon Pancakes with Apricot-Pinon Compote recipe started here too, and has since been moved to it's own page. It comes from The Food Network.,1977,FOOD_9936_20564,00.html
The Cookbook:Wild Rice Blueberry Dessert recipe is yet another from the same bunch, this time from I think. Google for the first sentence of the procedure to see.
Please also note the bad formatting, use of Old World ingredients, and unneeded use of modern ingredients. AlbertCahalan 05:25, 2 May 2005 (UTC)as there are lots of Native Americans still walking around, and eating, use of "old world" ingredients and "modern" ingredients is consistent with a living culture that has adapted to the resources available to it for the last 513 years. However, copyvioed recipes should be deleted. Gentgeen 08:14, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Unfortunately. I put some time into wikifying 2 of these, but since it turns out they're copyrighted, I'm all for deleting them. I wish we could get some new recipes, but I don't know any Native Americans! PurplePieman 08:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
Let's get the copyright violation deleted first, so it isn't in the history. Then, here are acorn "soup" (porridge) and acorn bread recipes. (from the US government, and thus public domain) AlbertCahalan 18:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't agree that Native American cuisine should use only locally native ingredients. But, I must agree that any copyright violations should be removed. Hopefully, we can repopulate the page with recipes from free sources. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:54, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Marginal content at best, copvio and ahistorical at worst. Kellen 6 July 2005 02:33 (UTC)
deleted, then recreated with links to two recipe modules Gentgeen 7 July 2005 04:16 (UTC)

Christianity/John 2

A straight translation of the Bible chapter. A source text, not a book, and translations of the Bible already exist aplenty at Wikisource. Uncle G 19:58, 30 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep − Since nobody's voting for deletion, as the present organizer of the Christianity Wikibook, I should list the justification for keeping such a translation/paraphrase/annotation of the New Testament. A quote from guidelines for annotated texts should be sufficient: In an annotated text, the annotations are interwoven with the primary source text, in order to make the book more reader-friendly. Uncle G should have looked at the final product which has only reached conclusion in Chapter 1 at Talk:John 1 where the student gets an introduction to the Greek and Aramaic original without all the heavy reading associated with other commentaries. The parallel translation with interwoven commentary format was showing on 5-28-05. :Admittedly, this is a unique work, a hybrid of source text, original work translation and annotation of both interwoven into a divinely inspired Book. If that is not Christianity, what is? - Athrash | {Talk) 21:37, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Uncle G seems to be ill informed, could not find any English translations of the New Testament on WikiSource except KJV. More annotations? When the stated objective was no heavy reading, you could say, it's all Greek to me, WikiBible, QuickieBible by definition. Example, one of Barnes' longest dissertations in his Notes on N.T. was not salvation but how intoxicated the wedding feast guests could be and did Jesus condone the customs of the time and who could say, except He mingled. From my own personal experience, one does get a rush from day-old fresh off the vine unrefrigerated muscadine grape juice. So, Modernity notes − social affair: fruit of the vine − the reader decides, WWJD. - Athrash | {Talk) 20:02, 29 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete unless more annotation is added to make this more than just a translation. Charlie123 16:40, 28 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • keep The annotations are being done in the talk pages rather than within the text. While I wouldn't necessarily have organized it in that manner, and is a slight abuse of the talk pages, there is more than one way to accomplish the same goal. This is original content and an interesting way to accomplish it. Rob Horning 6 July 2005 12:37 (UTC)

Biography of Nikola Tesla

This is a Wikipedia fork created by There is currently an edit war going on with Wikipedia's version, w:en:Biography of Nikola Tesla, whereby doesn't appear to want to allow the original article to be merged with w:en:Nikola Tesla. Do we keep this biography, but isn't it considered not to be an instructional resource? (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 01:41, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) Soon after I added a VfD tag to the article, removed it, but it is now restored. Note that the article has now been split into several sub-pages, so it's easiest to compare this revision as of 05:37, 21 Jun 2005, when the page was created on Wikibooks earlier today, with Wikipedia's version from just before (this revision as of 04:58, 21 Jun 2005). There is currently no attribution of the source for the Wikibook's article. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)This is based off of Wikipedia material. The edit war going on with Wikipedia's version is because there is too much information in the article. The biography should be kept. A full biography of Tesla could an instructional resource. -Anon (I gues that a fork is a bad thing here, but the information can be an instructional book; the history of modern technology begins during his lifteime) His Autobiography is in the public domain (I have access to an turn of the century copy via a scienctific library) and the autobiography can be attribution as the source for the Wikibook's article. The article, which has enough material to be a book, should be split into several sub-pages (for a true book). -Anon (AKA
  • The issue is, however, whether it is considered instructional material (or, on the autobiography, whether it is an annotated text). To me, a biography is not enough for it to be considered instructional material. In either case, since it is a fork of a Wikipedia article, I will have to vote delete on the grounds of WB:WIN - we do not tolerate forks from other projects here. KelvSYC 07:03, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete it. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and it's not a host for a fork of Wikipedia, either. Gentgeen 19:07, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep it I understand the issues of the edit war, but this has been modified into a legitimate Wikibook. There is more editing that could be done, but I don't see any real problem with what is there. Indeed, this is formatted more like a real book than most of what Wikibooks currently has to offer. As far as a fork of Wikipedia, I say go for it. If you can add sufficient content to turn a Wikipedia entry into a full book, that implies that there is considerable content that can be added. Again, I see too many existing Wikibooks becoming "mini Wikipedias" instead of organized books, and this particular Wikibook certainly is not going in that direction. Rob Horning 6 July 2005 12:25 (UTC)
deleted Gentgeen 7 July 2005 06:37 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas

I took on the task of reorganising the Wikibook for Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas. During the process, a number of duplicate pages were merged, and replaced with redirects. The redirects were then orphaned to ensure it was safe to remove them. I have maintained a list of these redirects. Can an admin remove all the redirects on this list. Aya 12:35, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: Why did you list this on Votes for deletion? --Member 4 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)
To get the attention of admins. I couldn't find a policy about what to do with redundant orphaned redirects, but they are worthless and just taking up space on the DB servers. Hard drives are not infinitely large y'know, so if everyone leaves a trail of crap behind them, the Wikimedia Foundation is just gonna incur extra expense. I suspect about 50% of pages on this site are just redirects. Still I'm beginning to think that no-one else gives a damn about the people who are paying for all this. If so, just ignore me. - Aya 8 July 2005 18:04 (UTC) For some reason the mentality is that "redirects are cheap", and are almost never deleted. You should see the paper-trail on Wikipedia, sometimes even horrendously bad misspellings are turned into redirects. So, unfortunately, your cries will likely go unheard. Well, at least they're not META redirects... Master Thief Garrett 9 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Ass pus in progress

Would've added it as a speedy deletion candidate, but seems to be protected. - Aya 00:19, 10 July 2005 (UTC)deleted Gentgeen 01:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Topic Structure

Orphaned with no indication of what book, if any, this module is a part of. KelvSYC 04:55, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This looks like it has been forgotten about by the original author, and doesn't look like it will ever form an instructional resource. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 12:48, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
deleted Gentgeen 7 July 2005 04:18 (UTC)

Quality Assurance:Student Contributions

It appears that someone at some place (ie. not Wikiversity) is using Wikibooks as a course website. KelvSYC 02:40, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I have to agree with KelvSYC. It appears that the author had second thoughts about the rest of the course, because this page links nowhere and is an orphan (it appears to have been abandoned for some time). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:40, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
deleted Gentgeen 7 July 2005 04:11 (UTC)

HPT in the Workplace

Keep This page may be misplaced but the content is sound and well-researched. Tspannaus 14:10, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: It's been languishing on this list for ages, and I wouldn't call it original research, it's more like a review. I would recommend merging it with the virtually empty Human Performance Technology for now. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 06:55, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Admin deleted this page. Kept for a day to inform others, will be taken down later. - Lynx7725 6 July 2005 07:23 (UTC)


This book has nothing to do with eduation and wikibooks at all. In addition to that, this is not even a book, but one single article. The author claims it ot be 100% complete, but is very small amounts of text there. Very unserious, i think it should be deleted. --August 09:46, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)
I agree with above. Whether WikiBooks should be advocating gambling is irrelevent in this particular case because this book is just pure drivel. The "strategy" described simply tells the reader to place bets in powers of two increments. Then it says, "if you won X number of times in a row, then they you would have 2X dollars/pounds. 20 Times in a row and you're a millionaire." If WikiBooks is going to have any cred: 86-it. --Shmeedogg 03:00, 3 Jul 2005 (UTC)Delete. Lincher 3 July 2005 21:12 (UTC)

Hockey CBA

Original research. KelvSYC 06:36, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is another one that has been here for ages. The decision was easy this time, because this project used Wikibooks as a free content provider to host their original research, and it appears to have been abandoned (see Wikibooks:What Wikibooks is not for why). (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 11:30, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Gunther research

These appear to be the research notes of User:Mgunthe. Wikibooks is not a hosting service or a place for primary research. Private research notes, unrelated to the task of writing Wikibooks, don't belong in user-space, either. Uncle G 22:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete after giving the user some time to move the content. TUF-KAT 05:15, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Lincher 00:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • --Mgunthe 20:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) Hi - Hi, I apologize if we have misused the wiki books. We were planning on using this as a page to communicate and keep track of our lab notes. Technically this is "primary research" but we are only keeping track of notes. Our group does publish in peer reviewed journals; however, we originally thought this could be useful as a dyadic tool. I gather this is outside of the scope of the wiki? If so, (that's too bad, because it is a great site) are there any recommendations for another site that does something similar?
MaxYou could try Wikicities. They might accept the project (you'd have to make it broadly editable, so that it would be a place for any group of people to communicate and share lab notes). TUF-KAT 07:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tta and TTA

Seems like a spamvertisement to me. The two are duplicate works. KelvSYC 18:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
Delete Yup, seems like an advertisement to me as well. I say trash it. --Cale Davis 02:55, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - I have to agree. Both articles were created anonymously, by an author that doesn't understand how to use redirection, and they haven't been back to edit or defend them since. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 03:09, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
deleted. Gentgeen 19:10, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks Pokédex:Ruby Sapphire Walkthrough 1

Possible copyvio, and it's in the wrong book to boot. KelvSYC 04:45, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Copyright Notice: This is Copyright ©2004 by Jason Howell and me (Colin Scully), and may only be used on,,, and Any other site caught plagiarizing this guide will have their ISP contact and possible Legal action. It also says at the end:Legal Info: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ This FAQ is copyright of Jason Howell and me frog. This FAQ can not be re-published under any site without consult from the author. Certain in-game content (as in enemy status info, etc can be re-published on any FAQ or Site, but must be written in your own words. If the content in this guide is published in full or with minor word change, action can range from contacting your Internet Provider or Website Provider, to legal action. I've found that page with the help of Google, and confirmed it by searching for several sentences from the Wikibooks page. In addition, fixed a few Pokemon typos - and every one of them was made on the Ign walkthrough page. I have no doubt that the walkthrough was copied, even without Ivyboy's trying to "hide the evidence" with "minor edits", so I say definitely delete.User142 09:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)(expanded at 07:18, 23 May 2005 (UTC))
  • delete - Ivyboy has essentially confirmed the above by twice removing it from this VfD page while marking the edits as "minor" in a futile attempt to hide them. His effective admission of guilt could be considered as his vote for deletion too, IMHO. AlbertCahalan 06:54, 20 May 2005 (UTC)


The article is not a "textbook, how-to guide, or classroom aid", and shows no indication of becoming one, or part of one. The author of the article vandalised the Main Page with a link to this article immediately before creating it, indicating that Pie is simply one part of an overall pattern of silly vandalism. Uncle G 02:22, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy delete and block the user -- I already marked this page for speedy deletion. The user removed that note, marking his change as a minor edit. I'm 99.9% sure that and Mann_Ltd are the same user. BTW, I'd have blocked them a day or two ago if I could have. AlbertCahalan 02:54, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Your 99.9% sure? Then you'd be wrong, do an IP check dude, no match, fine delete the poem, who cares, you don't like it, fine by me but don't make false accusations without backing it up!
--Mann Ltd 13:15, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • speedy - The creator, Mann Ltd, has cleared the page and has confirmed speedy deletion. I have, therefore, added the page to the speedy candidates above to hasten this slow process. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 04:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

MegaMan Battle Network:Walkthroughs

This is a copyright violation because of this notice at the bottom:Copyright © 2005 Duane Niles This may be not be reproduced under any circumstances except for personal, private use. It may not be placed on any web site or otherwise distributed publicly without advance written permission. Use of this guide on any other web site or as a part of any public display is strictly prohibited, and a violation of copyright. I don't see any evidence of permission granted to release the document under the GFDL. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 02:35, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Orphaned dictdef, hasn't seen editing in 4 months. KelvSYC 05:58, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
This page has no links to it, and thus is never reached unless you know the URL. Uh... did you delete some links? How the heck did you find this page? It doesn't seem all that special out of the 820 pages listed in Special:Lonelypages. I think this page qualifies for speedy delete. It has no history beyond the anon edit that created it. On the other hand, this page is not illegal, bulky and useless, occupying a name needed by something else, etc. It's a nothing. AlbertCahalan 06:10, 23 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - in fact I marked it for speedy delete. You should've followed the link. It went to a company that sells lamps! (not the normal LAMP, which means Linux + Apache + mSQL/MySQL + Perl/PHP/Python) Then just now it got spammed again. Enough of this. AlbertCahalan 15:47, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Engaged Tenderness - Handbook on Homosexuality

Sorry to pop into WB simply to delete an article. This article is machine-translated from German, basically unreadable in English. The German source appears to be copyrighted too: [5]. The person who submitted it here is now linking to it from Wikipedia:en:Homosexuality. Rhobite 01:42, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: Copyright survives translation, as it should. One could argue that this is more of a mangling than a translation. :-) AlbertCahalan 02:32, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
The page you refer to is saying this "Internet-Version - This document may be freely copied and distributed." It is an scientific article about the issue and can be freely used and modified. The goal is then, I think, to make a better correction and eglish text out of it. So just let is exist until it is finished editing, the text is quite good readable. So no need to delete an growing tree. Wait until it is translated fully, it`s a working platform. 09:36, 14 May 2005Saying "freely copied and distributed" is still not considered a "free" license. Derived works are not allowed, etc. I would also dispute that there is anything scientific about that article, but that's not such a big issue. Copyright includes the exclusive right to create derived works, not just the right to distribute. (this is not to be considered legal advice, see a lawyer if you need legal advice, etc.) As for "the text is quite good readable", well, I don't think you are a good judge of such things. AlbertCahalan 16:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC) This next link seems to be just a wrong url, someone used: 09:36, 14 May 2005
  • As a native English speaker, I assure you that the text is almost unreadable. With much effort, some of the sentences may be understood. Others are just unintelligible. Rhobite 18:48, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism as Stewardship

Simple copyright violation of the eBook "Good News for All Creation: Vegetarianism as Christian Stewardship". A quick search of the site reveals no indication that the books are licenced under a GFDL-compatible licence. Uncle G 02:10, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • delete The e-book is a $10 item. It also feels inappropriate; it is a very one-sided political paper. I suspect that the original author would not take kindly to me correcting his massive NPOV problems. (we seem to get a lot of these copyright violations of political rants; see the item right above this one) AlbertCahalan 02:44, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep This item is offered by the authors freely on the Internet and is perfectly suitable to be modified substantially, which is what the authors explicitly hope for. As indicated, NPOV needs to be adjusted so that this can be a more "objective" work. It is difficult to argue with the idea that "Vegetarianism represents stewarship" for a wide variety of religious and ethical traditions, so this should be explored and modified accordingly. I have contacted the author and they said OK. bookeditor 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Since you have contact with the author, please get them to place a notice on their site that places the work under the GFDL or into the public domain. I really hate to be so suspicious, but after the Pokemon incident, one can't be too careful. Note that mere redistribution is not enough; we expect to edit the work on this wiki. AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Keep, but only on the condition that it is not in violation of any copyrights. Further, I've said it before: POV issues in wikibooks are completely different than they are for wikipedia. Neither forms should have bias or false information or misleading half truths, but for something as interesting as a book it's suitable that a particular opinion is explored fully. In particular, notice how wikipedia reports opinions all the time, but only with respect to reporting other people's opinions? Well, those opinions come from source materials, including books. A nice slogan for my view would be "There's a place in wikibooks for both books on evolution and books on intelligent design. And it's ok if the books even disagree with each other." MShonle 01:47, 26 May 2005 (UTC) (Even though it's an e-book for sale, does that mean the seller has the exlusive rights or not?)
Good question. I've seen free GPL software, including TuxPaint and PearPC, being offered for sale without the required GPL notice. So the seller might even be violating the law. AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC) BTW, I'd love to know how both an Evolution book and an Intelligent Design book could survive without turning into identical Wikipedia-style pro-and-con lists or having one side crush the other in a brutal edit war. That's a bit like storing matter and anti-matter in the same box, isn't it? AlbertCahalan 03:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC) One note: I really hate that wikipedia schizophrenic style of "some think X, but others think Y. And then others say that Y is not a problem because of Z." Given that, I think a book on intelligent design really shouldn't have a "critiques of ID" section, unless it was geared to address common concerns and is therefore something the ID writer wanted in there. I wouldn't want the Evolution book to be cluttered with ID mutterings, so I would just hope that when cross posts and attacks happen the writers would say "this isn't consistent with the POV this book assumes; you should put this material in the other book instead." The real purpose of taking a POV is just to make the book readable. I mean, I would hope that an evolution book could have a section that rips ID to shreds, but in no way would it need to be appologetic toward ID. MShonle 22:25, 26 May 2005 (UTC) I'd like to direct you to Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines, where we have the one big difference between the 'books NPOV policy and the 'pedia policy. I think I'll quote verbatum. modules should represent differing views on a subject fairly and within the context particular to the Wikibook's scope (in other words, if the scope of the Wikibook is the consensus view of physics, then non-mainstream views on this subject are almost always irrelevant; but competing mainstream views can and should be presented). Thus, if the book in question is about evolutionary biology, the editors do not have to provide the creationists equal time, and don't even have to mention creationism, really. However, the creationists are free to write their own wikibook that doesn't mention evolutionary biology, either. Gentgeen 07:41, 27 May 2005 (UTC) Thanks! To be sure, I was getting at your final point exactly. The best way to resolve these irreconcilable debates is to just have different books present the different POVs (and that should not preclude an NPOV book from existing along with them). The point is that if every interesting statement had to be qualified and given counter points and counter-counter-points it would be so impossible to read that no one would be interested. Thus, POV isn't even an issue when discussing the merits of a book specifically about vegetarianism: The meat eaters can write their own books. Similarly, I hope the Intelligent Design people write their own books so as not to cloud an interesting book on Evolution. So, I would hope never to see an Intelligent Design book up for deletion just because an Evolutionist doesn't like it. MShonle 01:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Note that User:Bookeditor still has not responded to my request that the original author post a note about GFDL licensing on the original site. AlbertCahalan 23:43, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Getting a girl

This book clearly needs to be deleted, and I'm posting several comments within this section to explain why. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I have heard a number of complaints about the quality of this book, how most of the advice is ill-founded and counterproductive, the POV nature on some of its modules, and the general skew of the book towards het males. I don't know if a more neutral and refined relationship guide for all genders or sexual orientations has a place in a textbook project, but Getting a girl is certainly not it. It makes Wikibooks look like a joke. Dysprosia 01:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)I certainly agree that a textbook about relationships is a perfectly valid topic for us. But this book is certainly not it. I think you said this quite well. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep: I'll agree that the book sucks, but the premise is a good one, and possibly, with time and more mature contributors, it will improve. Look at how many relationship books are on the shelves of mainstream bookstores. There's clearly a demand. Why shouldn't a Wiki Book exist to satisfy that demand? It terms of the accusations of sexism and, more specifically, heterosexism, that's an argument brought on by a radical form of political correctness that was left behind by the world ten years ago. This book was obviously, though not explicitly, written for straight men on how to get straight women (or boys to get girls, as the title implies). Relationship books, like the current best-seller "He's Just Not That Into You", have a sex-specific bent by their very nature. So my vote, keep it. A radical overhaul of the contents may be in order, and possibly the Wikiquette, but the book itself should stay. The mere fact that "there ought to be a book" is not sufficient for this project. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • delete - no redeming qualities. Deleting and starting over (with a better title) is better than keeping this "book". Gentgeen 07:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete Nothing to add to Gentgeen's comments. Yann 10:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with the title thing. That kind of a title doesn't have much of a chance of attracting those mature contributors the book so desperately needs. It's one of those topics that more people on the internet would talk about in the manner of this book than in the manner of best-sellers. - SamE 11:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete This book is very poor quality, not suitable for most (if not all) classroom environments. There are far better sources of this type of information on the internet, and I observed incompetant people editing the book. This book is divisive, and adds little value to wikibooks, yet brings much baggage. Let's delete it and move on. A complete start over, as mentioned by Gentgeen, would be acceptable. Lesbians, gays, and incompetants should not be welcome in the new version, if it is created.
  • Keep. No reason to delete this book. Its topic isn't forbidden by any codified Wikibooks policy I know of. It might have a poor title and contents, but you don't need to use VfD to change those. Fugg 09:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
If this book is not forbidden by any codified Wikibooks policy, this shows a deficiency in policy, not the validity of the book. We can and should change policy to make it much more clear that any random goofball ideas does not a textbook make. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Please do not delete the book as the advise is quite healthy and needed for few people. Also, it is not necessary to take it off right away.
  • Keep Maybe the title should be "The Hetrosexual man's guide to finding a partner" but I see no reason why a book of this topic should not be allowed. And don't vote for something to be deleted simply because it offends your morality - that is mendacious. Here's an idea instead of going for the nuclear option we send in some international peacekeepers and edit the book to make it better. Maybe we will even teach the people who started the book a thing or two! Simontzu

  • Keep: Not sure if my vote's late...but the title should be changed. -Frazzydee| 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I count a 5 to 4 vote in favor of deletion. I propose we delete it now. It certainly makes wikibooks look like a joke5/4 is hardly consensus. Sure it needs improvement and a name change, but that's where a lot of wikibooks may have started off. Everything has to start off somewhere. -Frazzydee| 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) I don't believe that a NPOV textbook style will ever allow a quality book on this subject. Either it will be watered down and marginal, at best, or it will completely suck, like it does now. There are too many liberals here to allow this book to prosper. For example, a lesbian was editing out work done on the book. Does a lesbian have any business editing a book for men to meet women? Does political correctness, NPOV, and a textbook nature really address this subject correctly? Let's assume that the book reaches (my version of) its goals: it teaches young men what older men now know, and wish they knew when they were young. If it reaches that goal, it will have material that may be offensive to young, ignorant, liberal women, who will water the book down to uselessness. This very subject does not belong in wikibooks, this is a place for developing math and physics books. Not a place to discuss this topic. Let's assume wikibooks prospers and becomes the source of cirriculum for some school districts. Would you agree that this book would be a thorn in wikibooks side? This book will either forever suck, or if its high quality, it will be a thorn. Either way, it needs to be deleted. If you do not agree, let's take it one step further. Let's have a book on how to have anal sex correctly. That doesnt cause you any problems? Well, let's crank it up to "How to have sex with animals". Now let's have some uptight liberals working for the school district, like most of them do, who must evaluate wikibooks. "Whoa, they have a book on having sex with animals? Do we want to be associated with them? No way. Let's go back to paying the publishers to take advantage of us." Precisely. I don't endorse the slams on liberals, nor your reasoning in full, but I do agree with the need for us to have high standards, and also that not every kind of book is compatible with our goals and methods. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: The book is quite enlightening and educative compared to others out there!!
  • Keep: Conan 08:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep: I don't see any reason why Wikibooks should be restricted to "maths and physics" books. There is more to life than maths and physics, and the Wikibook does contain some very simple truths which nevertheless are not known to everybody. Also, the book does not appear sexist to me and is clearly written for heterosexual men. The idea that lesbians are discriminated against because of the title is ridiculous. There is no reason why lesbian issues have to be included. Nobody will attack a lesbian for writing a book with the same title where only lesbian issues are discussed. Talking equal rights here, not majority pressure.
*Keep: if it offends you, don't read it, or go write a cookbook. Jm51 01:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) 9 votes to keep, 5 delete, and it's been over a week. Jm51 06:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete The premise of the book is dubious, and the content (to the extent that I was willing to read) was pure conjecture. Just because publishers are willing to put out books as appalling as this (or worse even), doesn't mean we should support it as well. There are plenty of trite, trivial, nonsensical, demeaning, offensive, and unscientific books on every bookstore's shelves (some of the worst being found in the self-help section with titles like this), but I think we ought to have higher standards that those shared by the publishing industry as a whole. This is not to say that a good and useful book couldn't be written on courting, just that it's hard to imagine one, and that this is so far removed from being one that it should simply be deleted. <Jun-Dai 22:34, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)>
  • Delete I don't think it meets the standards of what we want to see in wikibooks, and the title itself is offensive. MShonle 02:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Admitted, I can understand the faults of this title however it is much more difficult to create a Wiki related project than it is to fix an existing one. If you have a problem with something in this title make your own addition/modification to it or the Wiki-Book Library.--Sibios 05:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Let me close by making clear what I'm saying. If the decision is to keep the book, then I'm going to act to change policy so as to eliminate the book anyway. It seems unfortunate if it comes to that. A healthier process would be to reach a more clear understanding of the mission of WikiBooks, and the development of alternatives if people really want them. But I will not tolerate a book like this under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is offensive, sexist, and stupid. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC) One more one last comment. I would support a vote about what to do about the book. Deletion is not the only viable option. My main point is that "accepting it" as-is, is not possible. It could be rewritten into a proper text, it could be moved (to wikicities, say), it could be deleted. I want the community here to feel empowered to make decisions. It's just that there are core principles of the wikimedia foundation that make some answers impossible. --Jimbo Wales 23:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Sexist, not adapted for Wikibooks. Yann 22:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Offensive, sexist, and stupid - that sums it up. --mav 05:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep I would have found some of that stuff damn useful about 15 years ago. AlbertCahalan 05:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, salvage the basic idea and occasional useful content (like the charming list of ideas for dates) into new wikibook. Sj 04:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Deleted, by my count, the vote was 10-5 (I only counted signed votes by editors with substantial edits/history at the project) Gentgeen 10:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Speedy deletion candidates

  1. Eeeeee/Saturn - Chinese link spammer messed up and created themselves a module. :) --Everlong 07:54, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Christianity: Mormonism

Mormonism is listed under the category of cult in the Christianity WikiBook. This is offensive to the members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as their religion is considered mainstream. The sibling entry for Jehovah's Witnesses may need to be excised as well.
GSwarthout 18:25, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
No need to delete Mormonism. Just change the category that it's listed under if you're unhappy. I've changed the category name to "Off-shoots of Christianity - religions related to Christianity". Hopefully you'll feel that that is a more accurate category for it to be placed in.OK, this is a waste of time. Why is there a deletion debate for a page that has no history EXCEPT to put in a VfD notice? I'm going to speedy this now. If you have a problem with a non existant page, take it to the talk page of the book, don't create a deletion debate for a non-module. Gentgeen 09:09, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Not a textbook project. Consider bringing this up at meta and asking for a seperate Wiki project - it doesn't belong on Wikibooks. Dysprosia 00:09, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • agreed - requires a separate project 03:57, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • agreed - valuable branch, but belongs closer to the wiki root! Robt11:50, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Delete. Wikibooks currently is not the place for 1st hand information. - SamE 02:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC) Delete. liblamb 17:20, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • I started the thing here, since I though the project is more a book than something meta. Also, I think it can be part of the Wikiversity project as long as there is no seperate branch... Guaka 17:42, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Well when how do we get a research wiki? Is it happening? 17:33, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep as long as there is no seperate wiki for research. Also keep for now anything in wikibooks that better would move to the wikiresearch project if it existed. 11:37, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)Deleted, vote of 5-1. Gentgeen 09:45, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Not appropriate for Wikibooks

I think that these pages are not appropriate for Wikibooks. Yann 19:50, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Many German pages

These pages are available in the german wikibooks.
  1. Rezeptverzeichnis ->


talk:Naryathegreat|(talk)]] 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)This seems like a bad joke, and the "recipe" has zero detail. I don't think wikibooks should be encouraging this kind of behaviour. MShonle 01:22, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It is absolutely not a joke. It is however, not a recipe. It is an ingredient. The cookbook lists many of these (Bison, Guinea Pig, Squirrel, Hedgehog, Edible Dormouse), not just recipes. If you follow the Wikipedia link provided, you'll soon come upon many placenta recipes. Well-known recipes include placenta pizza (obvious) and placenta cocktail. Some people saute the placenta with garlic and butter.
Note that I have in fact served placenta. It's decent. I think it would go well chopped up and fried in scrambled eggs. I get to test this in May or June; I'll write up the recipe if it turns out well.
Sorry if I turned your stomach, but this is much less gross than sweetmeat.
AlbertCahalan 03:42, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Keep, obviously. AlbertCahalan 03:54, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)It's "obvious" because you wrote the entry. But you should recall that the entry for "Human" was deleted, and this one even says "Human placenta, as with human flesh in general, tastes like beef". That's not acceptable. MShonle 08:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the entry for human was not an ingredient entry. It was some sort of recipe, presumably untested. I can not tell though, because the evidence has been destroyed. This was done improperly too, without a vote for deletion. Eh, this is grounds for undeletion. Why is it unacceptable to describe the taste of human? This is a simple fact. It has been reported multiple times by those who have had to survive on human flesh. I assure you that placenta does taste like beef. Try it, if you get the chance. Maybe a vegan, of the sort that equates animals with humans, would be offended if we describe the taste of beef? Should Cookbook:Beef go then? Now, go ahead and follow the links. Do you really think that people do not eat placenta? I stir-fryed Kevin's, and baked Kyle's. The next one (Jack's ?) might be mixed into scrambled eggs or maybe deep-fat fried. All over this VfD page, I can see people trying to destroy other people's work. This is way out of control. If something is too religous for you (songbook writing), grosses you out (this), or is not politically-correct enough for you (dating guide), don't read it. (should require 85% concensus with 95% statistical certainty) There are plenty of things that look like a joke to me, but I don't go trying to get them destroyed. Take the thousand-year-old egg for example. That's a rotten egg. It's a delicacy in China. BTW, I note that you are not even a Cookbook contributer. I've contributed over two dozen recipes and probably several dozen ingredients, along with fixing up links all over the place. As anyone can see, I am a serious cookbook contributer and you are not. (does anyone match me for number of original recipes?) There wouldn't even be a tomato entry without me. AlbertCahalan 16:27, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC) Please be mindful that all Wikibooks users are currently permitted to vote on the deletion of a Wikibooks module, not just contributors. Dysprosia 21:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Strong keep. Deletionists like mshonle and Gentgeen need to leave recipes alone. I am a vegetarian, but I don't go nominating a recipe for beef for deletion. Likewise, it's evil of you to nominate recipes such as kenbuloga (human) or placenta for deletion. --Node ueI'm not sure how Gentgeen got into this discussion, but just because I believe certain pages should be deleted doesn't make me a "deletionist". I've before defended struggling books and kept them alive: I have no problem with all of the stub books out there, for example, nor do I have problems with many of the less-than-accademic books here. I do, however, have a problem with books like Getting a Girl, and content that just seems to be part of an elaborate, sick joke. (Some people get a kick out of leaving stealth graffiti, so to speak.) Instead of throwing labels around, perhaps you could explain to us why deleting a "recipe" to cook a human is "evil" (actually, you should explain to us why even nominating such for deletion is evil itself). MShonle 21:02, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Keep. I see no valid reason for this to be deleted. It may have room for improvement but so to most of the articles on wikimedia projects. -- mattrix 20:19, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete This is here for shock value Trödel 21:56, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)Perhaps you should assume good faith yourself? I heard about this on the radio - which granted is a fairly unreliable source but at least shows that it exists outside of AlbertCalahan's imagination. See also [6] [7] [8] [9]. -- mattrix 22:21, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Indeed. I first heard of the idea from a midwife with over 20 years of experience. After she helped deliver my second child, she asked what we wanted to do with the placenta. She was big into herbal medicine and mother-earth stuff and such. She suggested several ideas, including use as food. (The other ideas included, if I remember right, making art with it and burying it under a seedling tree. Probably this was supposed to involve burning incense or singing, but I'm not into that.) Well, we couldn't decide. Days later my wife noticed that the midwife had placed it in the refrigerator, and... well, it tasted OK. :-) AlbertCahalan 00:02, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Touché - good point - but I still think that this should still be deleted - read it and the accompanying "organs" category - interesting reading but not sure how sweetmeat (I know this vote is on the Placenta) can be cooked without committing a crime (at least in the US). Trödel 22:27, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) No one is doubting that people practice such things. The question is if wikibooks should be serving such information. (Clearly we can agree that even some true statements or stories are not suitable for wikibooks. For example, we do not serve pornography, even though pornography is something that "actualy happens" and is true.) I believe we damage our credibility much more so than we "help" a few people out there. MShonle 22:32, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) Why do you believe so? If you imagine that people do not really eat placenta, please follow the links off of the wikipedia Placentophagy article. The cookbook can not be comprehensive without including all the different things that people eat. Placenta is hardly shocking compared to sweetmeat (testicles), thousand-year-old eggs (rotton eggs, prized in China), natto (rotten soybeans dripping with snot-like slime, often eaten in Japan -- wikipedia has a picture) and locusts (many of the Thai workers in Israel were delighted by the recent plague of locusts). Have a home birth some time, and you too will be looking for something to do with a placenta. Because as MShonle has stated it damages the credibility of the project. How does such an article support the mission of Wikibooks? Trödel 22:58, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) (by the way I returned all the previous edits that must have been deleted by accident) In what way is it not a free instructional resource? While I'm asking questions: here's a few to ponder: What should the criteria for censorship of wikibooks be? Who should decide what is "offensive"? (Presumably "offensive" material should not be posted on this page as it may offend readers.) What age group is it meant to be "non-offensive" to? Which cultures should it be "non-offensive" to? (Remember that some people consider chess or music offensive, and some vegetarians may consider the idea of eating meat as disgusting as you find the idea of eating placenta.) What is the maximum percentage of visitors that may be offended (if any)? Have you heard a teacher/lecturer saying "Don't use wikibooks, it has instructions on how to cook a placenta"? Why is wikipedia's policy on this issue not appropriate for wikibooks? Sorry if that leaves the impression of a frothing-at-the-mouth rant, but I feel quite strongly about freedom of speech. :)-- mattrix 23:44, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC) To answer your question: A democratic process, where-in people vote and express their opinions (exactly what this is) should decide what is offensive. It's a red herring to call it censorship-- I've already established that we don't allow pornography, which is something defined only from the community standards. For me, I saw content I didn't like: comparison of humans tasting like beef, references to humans as an ingredient, and pretty far claims regarding vegetarians. If there was more than meets the eye about this entry (enough red flags were already raised), this forum would probably discover it. Perhaps I'd feel better about this entry if it was toned down and took into account my concerns. As for instructors, that's probably not the best example: The media reports on wikiprojects and there's no need to give them fodder when it could be all we are defending was just someone's idea of a joke. (I'm fairly convinced now that the entry wasn't a joke, but credibility is crucial.) MShonle 03:05, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Thank you for listing your concerns. Going from simple to complex... Ugh, the p word... there is a movie-making book you know. :-/ There are many related topics (casting, lighting, script writing, marketing, camera usage, multi-angle DVD authering...) that are not themselves porn. I wonder where you would draw the line, but this is getting off-topic. Things also get interesting as wikis gain real image editing support. Supposing that the media is worth being concerned about, and supposing that such content would be noticed and presented in a bad light (both big assumptions), remember the old saying: "even bad press is good press". If it is publicity you want, then being ignored is worse than the worst press. I tend to think that if such content would be noticed and reported on (not that I think this likely), it would be presented in a semi-positive light: "Hey, they cover everything!" The claims regarding vegetarians are, to the best of my knowledge, factual. I've found multiple sources that agree on this. It also makes sense; reasons for vegetarianism differ greatly. Many vegetarians have chosen their diet because they feel that killing animals is cruel, violent, wrong, and so on. By such measures, placenta is cruelty-free, and thus acceptable. That it is acceptable doesn't mean you like the taste of course; you'd never get me eating sweetmeat even though I find it to be a morally acceptable practice. Humans do in fact taste like beef. I first heard of this as reported by the soccer team that suffered an airplane crash in the Andes. Personal experience with placenta backs this up. I know that others are curious about this; a co-worker once brought up the question during lunch. Would you be happier if "as with human flesh in general" were left out? It would of course need to be mentioned as part of any future Cookbook:Human (probably not based on the deleted one), but at least then the Cookbook:Placenta entry wouldn't disturb people without an advanced case of curiosity. I do like to fully cover a topic though, including pointers and lead-ins to related topics. I don't think I implied that non-placenta human flesh would be a generally acceptable ingredient under non-emergency circumstances. I don't think I suggested one way or the other actually, intending to leave that to any future Cookbook:Human entry. AlbertCahalan 05:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) You have to be careful when you say something is acceptable to a very large community. By your same reasoning, you could conclude that roadkill is acceptable to vegetarians because it is cruelty free. I don't think many vegetarians would really care to have their beliefs simplified like that. I think the comment should just be removed, because the article isn't about vegetarianism. Instead, you could list the more relevent fact that most mammals eat the placenta, even herbivores. (The p-word argument is mostly to remind us all that we have community standards already, just to get over the "censorship" idea. The word censorship can get thrown around in contexts where it's not relevant or helpful.) Also, I'm not sure about the "as with human" claim either: I've heard from other sources that humans taste bad as a natural defense mechanism, kind of like skunks. It's one of the more shocking claims, so it could be removed with little cost. The warning and disclaimer could be more prominent, as well. MShonle 15:14, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) I don't want to go on a tangent here but I though I'd just point out that eating placentas does not involve the death of any living thing (quite the opposite, in fact) whereas farming and roadkill both do, and that may well be a key distinction in the minds of many vegetarians. Re: your tangent. Actually, plants are "living things," so your distinction is not important here. It's just such a random concept, it probably deserves to have no association with vegetarianism (for example, it would be completely inappropriate for the vegetarian or vegan cookbooks to reference this organ ingredient). As a rule, vegans do not consume snake skin, even though the skin has the same living status as a placenta (it's a multicellular organ that was once living)-- this, there is no connection, and even for particular ethical system the connection is weak at best (and we all know that there is no single ethical system for vegetarianism). MShonle 19:16, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Let's not confuse a person's reasons for veganism with their other reasons for food choice. There is the cruelty to animals concern, and then there is a sort of grossness and edibility factor which is not even limited to vegans. I have no ethical qualms about eating any of this stuff, but you won't get me to eat a snake skin. I expect it would be scaley. Actually I would try boiling it to make dashi for miso soup, but I wouldn't eat it. There is no reason to believe that a vegan, of the animal rights sort, would feel an urge to eat snake skin even if they do find it ethically acceptable. Do not forget sweetmeat (testicles)... the mere fact that I eat meat does not mean I will eat sweetmeat, but I do consider it to be an acceptable dining choice to make. Slightly less weird would be liver, an organ that collects poisons. If I say that non-vegans sometimes find liver and onions acceptable, I am in no way suggesting that it is normal to eat liver and onions. (Eeeew) Saying that vegans sometimes find placenta acceptable is the same; it in no way implies that it is normal for vegans to be wolfing down placenta cocktails and placenta burgers. Actually, I believe your argument proves my point. Suppose that "non-vegetarians" was a small, minority group in a much larger world of vegetarians, vegans, and others. If a recipe said, apropos of nothing, "liver and onions is acceptable to some non-vegetarians" even though that statement doesn't claim that even most non-vegetarians would find it acceptable, the very fact that it's mentioned makes it sound like there is some connection. For example, if I said "Linux maintainers should find snake skin acceptable," would you really want to be categorized like that? (maybe you would, but should you make that decision for everyone?) I would think most, if not all vegans, would find placenta unappealing, not the least of which is that the texture of meat and organs becomes disgusting to most of those who haven't eaten such in over a year. A vegan would more likely support feeding it to animals, or using it for compost, but, again, this footnote about vegetarians and vegans really has no place. MShonle 21:39, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC) Follow-up: I've checked "The PeTA Guide to Animal Ingredients" (one of the largest vegan/vegetarian organizations) and it specifically lists placenta as always being animal derived (obvious) and never suitable for vegans. Thus, there is no basis for mentioning vegans on this very fringe page. MShonle 19:26, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)Several things wrong with this:
  • PETA is widely known as one of the most extreme violent animal-rights terrorist groups. Their opinion is not exactly mainstream. They have even equated the life and welfare of a child with that of a rat.
[Wow, this claim is so wrong I don't even know where to start, other than say that PeTA has never been violent. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)] I'll trust that you're innocent... well, where do I start? PETA donated $1500 to Earth Liberation Front after ELF had commited violent crimes. PETA gave $70000 to Rodney Coronado, an arsonist who attacked a university research lab. PETA speakers have encouraged violent acts toward fast-food places and laboratories. More details: [10] You don't condone this stuff, do you? Do you support PETA in spite of (or because of) all that violence? AlbertCahalan 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • They seem to base this decision on the fact that purchase of animal waste would financially benefit those who use animals. I presume this logic is also applied to the purchase of manure, animals that die of natural causes, leftover feed, and so on. In other words, they consider it wrong to do business with those who work with animals.
[Manure isn't on the list. Sorry man, but now you're just grasping at straws. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • Human placenta is of course exempt from any such arguments. PETA is definitely referring to animal placenta, particularly the cattle placenta often used in cosmetics.
[There is no "of course". MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)] You can say it all you want, but that list is specifically about animals. AlbertCahalan 02:52, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) How about I just add this: "(this is not intended to imply that vegans eat placenta any more than non-vegans would eat it or any other organ meat)" Better? AlbertCahalan 19:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) [No, only complete deletion of this claim would be acceptable. But this should not weaken my position that I think the entire article itself is out of place. What are you going to suggest next? That vegans "should" be fine with eating cheese made from human breast milk? Either way, you are in no position to be speaking for what vegans would or would not find acceptable. This is almost as bad as the "some say" claims on the wikipedia: it's always true that some fringe group would say practically anything, but that doesn't justify "some groups claim X" in an article that doesn't call for it. MShonle 22:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)]
  • keep: I have no objection with this portion of the cookbook, though I have my doubts that it will turn into something valuable. That alone, however, is not grounds for deleting it. With that in mind, I suggest we keep it, or revisit the decision in a year or two if the article hasn't really gone anywhere. Jun-Dai 08:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • A book needs editorial guidance, which not only means what to include, but also what to exclude. Editors add value to works by making something more effective for the target audience. Alienating the target audience with too many fringe tangents can hurt the work. (Perhaps fork to another book, where it's clearer this is on the fringes? MShonle 19:22, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))
    • I moved your comment as it was quite long (as is this reply) and I was trying to summarise the existing discussion. Somebody can add something to the summary once we all understand it correctly. You seem to be proposing an whole new policy - that each book has an editor/editors that decide what goes in and what goes out. Is this correct? If you saying the entire community is the "editor" then that doesn't seem to lead anywhere in this discussion. I think I must have misunderstood so please clarify. -- mattrix 20:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Indeed, the "whole community" is the editor. (But, for particular books, I think some dedicated contributors can and should play an editorial role in shaping the vision of what the book should be: this is how we are different than wikipedia: there is a standard for what information to include on a topic for an encyclopedia entry, but there is no standard neither for what a book should cover, nor for how it should present that material.) The point is that sometimes calls need to be made, and simply relying on the "safe" argument that "anything should go" can produce inferior works. Thus, my comment serves to exclude a line of reasoning that advocates an anything goes policy. (However unintendedly subtle my point was.) MShonle 21:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • I'll treat the point about alienating the target audience seperately. I don't see why things can't be part of the main book just because they a niche interest - many people aren't particularly interested in vegan recipes but I've got no problems with it being in the main cookbook. To be honest, I think anybody could find something they think is disgusting by looking carefully through a comprehensive international cookbook (which I what I think this book should aim to be.) This page isn't exactly linked from the front cover or anything. -- mattrix 20:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
In the future it might be a good idea to have a "vetted" cookbook containing only the tried and favorite recipes found in the entire collection. While it's probably good to have a record of large recipes, even those that aren't very successful, it's good to also have a smaller set that has been verified. Afterall, if completeness was the only goal, I'd go and write a script to download the USDA ingredient database and then iterate through all possible recipes that are less than 20 pages. The information would be absolutely useless, even though the very best chocolate chip cookies recipe ever concieved would be a member of that set. (This is the corollory to the idea that the empty set and the compliment of the empty set (i.e., everything) contain the same amount of information.) For a good example why something more complete is desirable, there are plenty of common recipes out there that are so simple or elementary that most books won't even include them. I'm not saying we should be writing "how to make a PB&J sandwich" and "how to make a bowl of cereal" (unless someone has already done so?), but something more standard, but overlooked might be useful. But please realize that true compelteness isn't desirable for the project, so the line must be drawn somewhere. (And drawing lines isn't a clear or easy process; but just like good monetary policy, somethings desirable are never clear or easy.) MShonle 21:15, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Summary of Arguments

This discussion seems to be getting a bit complicated so I just thought I'd lay out how I see this issue (please feel free to edit it but try to be as succint as possible):
Starting point: good reasons must be provided before any wikibook module is deleted. This module does not fit the criteria for immediate deletion, and the following is a summary of reasons provided to consider deletion, and their counter arguments.
Suggested reasons:
  • Page will never become an instructional resource
    • It is useful to inform about this culinary option, providing a list of recipes or at least some cooking guidance
      • Are you serious - moving the arguments about this issue and labeling them as misplaced - that is ridiculous Trödel 07:23, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • Joke/Nonsense/Vandalism/Shocker etc
    • Other sources on this [11] [12] [13] [14].
    • Many other shocking foods: sweetmeat (testicle), chocolate-covered ants, spicy dried grubs
    • AlbertCahalan isn't a vandal [15]
    • But the Human recipe, somewhat similar, was determined to be nonsense/vandalism
  • Content on vegetarian philosophy is not accurate
    • Not really, though readers might assume that typical vegans eat placenta (see liver-and-onions example above)
    • This problem area could be fixed in the text
  • Bad reputation/press
    • This page will likely not significantly affect wikibooks's reputation or press coverage.
  • If I've missed an argument, please add it
I hope that's a bit clearer. -- mattrix 17:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Page will never become an instructional resource

These were not following the format given by mattrix; they are wordy versions of existing top-level reasons. They are not rebuttals belonging on the second level.Actually they are support and rebuttle for those reasons. Trödel 07:22, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) They should be moved up to the main descussion or, since they are redundant, simply deleted.
  • Using Placenta as an ingredient is unlikley to be done except in specific communities of which there has been significant links to suggest that those communities have the information they need. Trödel 21:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC))
  • It's better to have a cookbook known for having good recipes than it is to have one that is so complete it includes terrible recipes and things that should never be tried out in the civilized world. MShonle 17:59, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)
AlbertCahalan 19:23, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Mesopotamian Marshlands

This page is just structure, albeit very detailed structure, and has been almost since Wikibooks was created. It's kind of wierd anyway, unorganized (there is no logical point-to-point movement), and frankly the linked website is just impossible to understand.--Naryathegreat 23:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)Granted that the linked website - Eden Again [16] - may offer opportunities for enhancement, yet to me, to the participants in an October 2005 conference on the Marshes at Harvard [17] - and in the assessment of numerous international environmental and humanitarian bodies - eg UNEP [http:// tinyurl .com /5or4n] - the condition of the Marshes is clearly recognized as a major ecological and human rights disaster with profound historical and cultural implications. The Eden Again project has been a prime mover in mobilizing resources, including a remarkable opportunity for the application of a wide range of innovative and integrative approaches to ecologically sound restoration processes. Information Ecologist 21:35, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) No offense, but who cares? It may be a great project and all, but of what use is it to us as a textbook? - SamE 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) Keep: The topic is well-focused, even topical, and could be useful (eventually) for instruction. Some people have very long cycle times before they are able to work on their projects again. MShonle 01:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) Abstain: upon further review this has less to offer than I initially thought. MShonle 19:05, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)Wikibooks deletion policy states: In general, delete pages that simply will never become instructional resource modules, for example, modules that represent completely idiosyncratic non-topics, etc.--Naryathegreat 02:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) In which case, somebody should have pointed out the policy before some serious work was put into the book. It's a little late now for such arguments. (the book may be abandoned while incomplete though, which is an entirely different matter) AlbertCahalan 04:00, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) I have already compiled a substantial body of detailed information and analysis on the as-yet-unelaborated sections of the book, and have also identified - an in many cases, been in contact with or met - many of the leading experts on the condition of the Marshes. As I had noted in an earlier message on this page, current plans are to prepare an invitation for their participation in the 2005 Mesopotamian Summer - and to seek intern and volunteers to focus on different aspects of the condition of the Marshes. As for the interest, there was a great amount of interest, from diverse academic disciplines - represented at the Harvard Conference cited above in innovave and interdisciplinary curriculum resources, as well as appreciation for the invaluable role of the Internet in making the information available. Information Ecologist 21:44, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) If you have all of this detailed information already compiled, why not post it? The idea of a wiki is that users collaboratively work on a project, in Wikibooks' case, a textbook, until they reach the point where they can no longer improve it. There is almost no way anyone could reach that point by themselves, so why are you waiting to put this so-called "substantial body of detailed information" on the web. If the internet is an "invaluable" resource in spreading this information, then why is there nothing on the Wikibooks page? Your own arguments are self-contradictory. - SamE 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) There is enough wealth of information about mesopotamian marshlands that it could conceivably become a book. I think that qualification is more to discourage works like "Segway-Riding Soccer" or "Red is a Color" or "A History of the Colby College Student Lounge". MShonle 04:27, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) It's not exactly "Red is a Color", but this is pretty close. WTF? AlbertCahalan 03:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Well, hey, anybody tried contacting the initial author? (email, in case he doesn't log in here often) Probably this one is dead, but giving it plenty of time in VfD status would be polite I think. Not everybody can make it here every week without fail. AlbertCahalan 03:52, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)I don't oppose Mesopotamian Marshlands, but what the heck is the New Eden Project? And what chance is there of anyone putting effort into a Mesopotamian Marshlands book, at least for the moment (honestly)? And as for serious work, it's just a lot of structure that the original author promptly abandoned. It might even have been a copy and paste job. And anyway, it's hard to point out Wikipolicy before an action is taken...--Naryathegreat 22:41, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) This is a good question: Upon reviewing it again it does have a bit of that random feel, particularly the story about the landmines. It seems pretty hopeless it'll become anything more (and the probability of someone else coming along and expanding it seems pretty low). Perhaps I'll change my vote to abstain, but it seems fairly harmless to keep it. MShonle 22:51, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC) The gist of it seems to be: have buzzword++ environmentally friendly living in the marshes, with an economy based on information. To put it bluntly, I guess this means web developers living in huts. Somebody tell these people about competition and the .com crash... AlbertCahalan 01:44, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC) Honestly, I don't understand how they managed to work the internet into the marshlands.. but they've done it. This book should be deleted, speedily. Virtually everyone with whom I have discussed the approach has appreciated the amazing potential of a wireless internet and VOIP platform - in conjunction with solar energy - could serve as an ideal, ecologically sound and cost-effective platform for communication, education, access to information and health care, as well as for economic deelopment in areas where the provision of traditional power and sources would be very expensive and have substantial environmental impact. Information Ecologist 21:57, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Oooooh, amazing potential...but no actual output. This "approach" just isn't working. - SamE 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC) I sent User:Information_Ecologist an email a few days ago, and just now left a message on his talk page. BTW, he's started another strange book recently. Also, what the heck are IHWIL/2003, IHWIL/TRAVEL, and so on? AlbertCahalan 03:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
These books might really be outlines that he uses for public speakig. He is also using wikibooks for some sort of resume. IHWIL/2004 contains an interesting quote: "An emerging wikibook on Information Ecology, much of the body of the latest version was generated from the Digital Engine, Mark II; earlier version of those sections were generated from the Habitat3 Digital Engine." In other words, this is computer-generated text??? There is a section on the Mesopotamian Marshlands too. Then there is Alice_in_Cyberwonderland, which very nearly caused me to die. If you read down to October 2004 on the IHWIL/2004 page, you'll see that these "books" are being automatically generated out of a relational database. Woah.
delete - user's IHWIL/2004 page admits that these "books" are computer-generated from a relational database. They are program output from Novell DataPerfect, and thus not in the preferred form for editing. There's a lot more than just the Mesopotamian Marshlands one. AlbertCahalan 04:21, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
He appears to be a crafty link spammer. He has hit wikipedia and some other wikis too. (see Google) His web site URLs will need to be blocked at the wikimedia level. AlbertCahalan 05:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)Delete - It has been there for a long time and the "cover" should be a clue that there is little in the way of scholarship despite the rather complete and detailed outline. - marsh 07:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) Whoa am I glad I brought this up. It appears that maybe we should delete all of these pages, and possibly warn him, followed by some kind of ban for repeated violations. This is a really wierd phenomenon than I don't wish to allow to spread.--Naryathegreat 20:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC) I am adding the following pages because they are related to this Vote for deletion. It is clear that much of it is either a copy and paste job or computer generated (due to the incredible amount added in such a short space of time, and by the user's own admission at IHWIL/2004) They contain such ludicrous text as: "The ongoing transition to digital knowledge-based environments has seen a rapid proliferation and evolution of new forms of information species" (I wasn't aware information could evolve on its own!) and "With the ability to travel at the speed of light, information takes virtually zero time to travel. In the context of progressively increasing Travel at the speed of light" (okay, this is just wrong, information can only travel instantly at 0K, or absolute zero, that's why your internet isn't instant, duh-and also, too bad his "evolving information" can't speak correctly :-)--Naryathegreat 20:18, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Information Habitat: Where Information Lives (and its MULTITUDE of subpages)
Information Ecology/Information species/Taxonomy
Information Ecology/Information species
Information Ecology/Information habitat
Information Ecology/RGB Matrix
Information Ecology/Properties
Information Ecology/Table of Contents
Information Ecology/Welcome
Information Ecology
Please note I have begun making revisions to Information Ecology and am including a new case study - Civil Society Report - with a broader focus to document the conribution of Information Ecology, the Wiki platform, DataPerfect, and open source, open content resources. I might add that I will have an exceptionally talented intern during spring break who loves Wikipedia, who has exeptional editing and writing skills, and who is the reporter on Science & Technology for the Yale Daily News. I would greatly appreciate it if a grace period could be granted - for all of these books - so that I can finally begin to move into the next, collaborative phase of the growth of these Wikibooks. Information Ecologist 22:10, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Alice in Cyberwonderland
Data Perfect (blank)I have been making extensive preparations for the next phase of growth of the DataPerfect wikibook, which I had began shortly before my participation in a September 2005 DataPerfect Developers Conference [18] and am preparing to invite the members of the active DataPerfect Users Discussion Group to contribute to the DataPerfect wikibook - as well as to the design & development of the Civil Society Report on a Culture of Peace, and to explore the opportunities for synergistic relationships between DataPerfect, the Wiki platform, Cascading Styles and other open source platforms. Information Ecologist 22:20, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) Light Cubes (blank)
delete (reaffirm for the whole lot of 'em) Also, I put it up for speedy deletion. Automated program output does not deserve the same respect as the products of real human effort. Note: do not delete without first blocking his URL at the wikimedia level; he has hit wikipedia and a few other wikis as well. BTW, while checking his web page with a Googlebot user agent string might be interesting, it appears that his motive is to collect donations. People look at his pretty "peace cube" (RGB cube) and "prayer wheel" images, then send him money. AlbertCahalan 21:00, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)Deleted (no content was there except the VfD template), deleted Talk page as well, since it only asked to delete the book. --Andreas 21:28, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

moved from speedy-delete

I thought it best to move things down here, since a human has finally shown up to explain things a bit. This is all still quite weird, and I don't think it is OK to have text that others don't really get to edit as a normal wiki, but anyway...
  • DataPerfect/Functions and more. User:Information Ecologist has contributed lots of computer-generated text. The page even says "This wiki page was generated from the DataPerfect FORMULA database." at the bottom. Basically everything from this user is computer-generated database dumps. He has hit Wikipedia and a few other wikis as well. In other words, he's a link spammer, and his URL will need to be blocked. AlbertCahalan 05:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I concede that many - but by no means all - of the pages I have posted in Wikibooks have been generated from databases, however, I would respectfully submit that to describe them simply as computer dumps and my activites as link spamming may not to justice to the methodology that is being used to draft these wikibooks - a methodology that is being designed through the development of data transfer mechanishms between DataPerfet Digital Engines and the Wiki engine.
A brief note may be in order as to DataPerfect, as despite its brilliance - it was first published in 1985 as a companion to WordPerfect for DOS and before that had served - through, inter alia, brilliant file and record locking design - as the engine for WordPerfect exceptional telephone support service. DataPerfect - and is author, Lew Bastian, who had earlier written some of the first disk-caching patents while at IBM - is alive and well, re-energized by a September 2004 DataPerfect Developers Conference that highlighted ways that DataPerfect engines can support web site development. See also an updated entry at Mesopotamian Marshlands. Information Ecologist 21:14, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) Okay, this is simply silly. A casual study of these pages indicates that there is no value in them, no hope of the addition of content, and simply no reason to clog our servers with their contents. None of it even makes a single sliver of sense- is anyone going to come here looking for Alice in Cyberwonderland? The answer is a resounding NO!--Naryathegreat 00:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I'd feel a bit better about the books if all external links were removed. Automated page generation would have to stop too, excepting index pages generated purely from pages existing in the wiki. Not that I'd care for the books, but then they at least wouldn't look like link spamming. AlbertCahalan 01:21, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC) I would like to try and clear up what seems to be a general misnderstanding about the use of a database to generate pages in these wikibooks. I have been using the database to generate pages so as to develop and maintain a coherent structure for the books and consistent styles and formats for pages, from a sense that the design and format of a book plays a significant role in ite readability However, the use of the database by no means prevents anyone from editing the pages or contributing to the wikibook. The methodology for these wikibooks entails an interactive process betwenn the Wiki platform and DataPerfect; new Wiki entries will be incorporaed into the database and new databse-generated pages will be generated. A secondary benefit from theis appreoach will be to enable publication of the wikibooks in other platforms - eg plain html, WordPerfect, Word, pdf for distribution on a CD=ROM - and with different formatetc. and include different formatting options - fonts, sizes, etc. Btw, One of the key sections of the DataPerfect wikibook, will focus on elaborating the details of the methodology for managing interfaces between DataPerfect and the Wiki platform. Information Ecologist 23:26, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC) To I-E: you know, you can always try Wikicities or even setting up your own wiki server if you want, if these pages are to be deleted... Dysprosia 04:09, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Delete the whole list. Finally! It's been around a long time. Who needs an entire page (for that matter, several entire pages) of endlessly complicated layout, all with absolutely no information (with a few exceptions), "more to come"-type signs up, and little comments/headings that make it sound nice and happy, as well as internet- and wiki-praising. This doesn't even belong at Wikipedia, let alone Wikibooks. - SamE 00:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It's time to delete every page Information Ecologist has created. It is simply stupid. It's just trolling is all it is and half of it is blank, boring, useless structure. And have you taken a look at the light cubes? Our servers are not free repositories for useless information!--Naryathegreat|(talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)