Wikibooks:Votes for deletion

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

	Wikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussion	Administrative Help	Announcements	Permissions	Page Deletion	Featured Books
Reading Room	Administrative Assistance	Bulletin Board	Requests for Permissions	Deletion — Undeletion	Nominations

Introduction

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

What is this page?

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

Nominating content for deletion

Please add new deletion nominees by creating a new section at the bottom of this page with a link to the module in the heading and a justification for the nomination. Also place the {{vfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{vfd}} goes on the top-level page. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Closing debates

After a minimum of one week & once the outcome is clear (by the time taken and level of participation), the discussion is closed with a statement on the decision. If the nominated book or module survived, add a {{vfd-survived|page=PageName}} to its talk page, and remove {{vfd}} from the module. The following templates should be used to "close" the VfD with {{subst:Closed|1=Outcome and ~~~~ to sign}} under the heading and {{subst:End closed}} at the end of the section. Only administrators can delete content. If consensus is to delete, but the book has salvageable content, add {{Impending Doom}} so anyone who wants a copy of the content can do so before it is deleted.

Archiving

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

1. Edit the discussion section and place an inclusion link to the archive page above it: {{:Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/FullPageName}}.
2. Preview the change and follow the link to create the subpage.
3. Move the content to the sub-page and save.

Icons used to help identify a person's position

{{subst:icon|info}} - if you're adding important information/facts that are needed for the discussion

{{subst:icon|keep}} - you believe the project should keep the nominated work

{{subst:icon|delete}} - you agree that the nomination should be deleted

{{subst:icon|merge}} - you believe the nomination should merge with another book before delete

{{subst:icon|transwiki}} - you believe the nomination should be moved to a more appropriate wiki before delete

{{subst:icon|redirect}} - you believe the nominated page or book should be made into a redirect after delete

{{subst:icon|comment}} - if you need to express or clarify an opinion which is not covered by any of the above options

Contents 1 Wikibooks:Block log 2 Psionic Mind Over Matter 3 Help:A quick guide to templates 4 Help:Formatting_help 5 Getting to Know You and Online Graphics 6 A Textbook on Recovery Psychology 7 Programming_ai:ch1_nn 8 Mac OS X Tiger Server 9 Help:Books 10 Transwiki:Discretionary Will 11 Voyage Century Online 12 CCNA Certification/Section 1 - RIP and CCNA Certification/Section 2 - IGRP 13 CCNA Certification/Chapter 1 - The OSI Model 14 F Sharp/License 15 Category:A-Level Mathematics

[edit] Wikibooks:Block log

Was {{delete}}. Wanted to see if anyone knew if this was worth keeping. There are some project pages that are kept despite having been deprecated (e.g. by features in the software). Swift (talk) 03:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment Are the still active blocks documented in any other way that in that file? --Panic (talk) 04:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

* Speedy delete If you read the content of the page and look at the history this is clearly someone's idea of a joke (e.g. "with an expiry time of 26 fortnights (Chinese linkspam to the main page and others. No soup for you, come back, 1 year)"). The correct page for this is Special:IPBlockList --AdRiley (talk) 08:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Well, the page creator is User:Gentgeen, an administrator who has contributed 3500+ edits since joining the project in December 2003. His edits reveal some counter-vandalism work around the time the page was created. I wouldn't want to speedy anything that might be important in some respect. As for the language of the block summaries; I have nothing agains a sense of humour, it often helps when dealing with tedious things like cleaning up after vandals. --Swift (talk) 13:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  User:Gentgeen's block log. --Swift (talk) 13:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

  Comment Maybe you should ask Gentgeen what that page is for then? --AdRiley (talk) 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

• This page predates the block log, however I don't understand why there was only one edit to the page ever. This leads me to believe it is not the original log page. Nevertheless, most blocks have long since expired. The users with indefinite blocks are long gone, and if they ever did request unblock, the information on that page would not be helpful.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This is a historical page with no potential use to us now, and it doesn't really serve as any kind of historical tool for us to gain insight into the early workings of this project. In short, this page is useless, and even though it was created by an exemplary Wikibookian, it is not worth keeping any longer. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Please also consider Wikibooks:Bureaucrat log, Wikibooks:Deletion log (see old revision), Wikibooks:Upload log, Wikibooks:All pages by title, Wikibooks:Long modules, Wikibooks:Long articles, Wikibooks:Most wanted modules.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Delete and Upload logs should be kept since Wikibooks' logs don't go that far back. The Bureaucrat log doesn't seem to include anyone who has access to admin or bureaucrat tools, so should be safe to delete. The rest can also be deleted because they are just lists rather than logs and are not as updated as the automatic lists. --darklama 21:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are agreeing to more deletions under the same or similar rational, advanced on this discussion, you should make it clear by adding those (agreed upon) pages to this nomination, giving more visibility to it, so to avoid any confusion, consider also tagging those pages as VFD, maybe someone is watching them and not this particular thread... --Panic (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Psionic Mind Over Matter

This was tagged speedy, but I'd like the community's input on this. I don't think we should bar all self-help books. This is a difficault terrain and we should be careful in dismissing works that could be salvaged. Still, in this case, I think the whole premise of "psionics" a term which the book accredits to the science fiction writer w:John W. Campbell is dubious at best. I think that a book on the benefits of positive thinking would certainly fit into the scope of Wikibooks, but I'm not sure if it would be worth the effort to weed out the pseudoscience in this book. Swift (talk) 02:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia also credits John W Campbell for the term "psionics" and seems to be citing http://www.davidszondy.com/future/man/psionics.htm as a source. Are there any other reasons why you think this book is pseudoscience, unreliable or not factual? --darklama 02:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

My main reason for thinking so is the actual contents of this book. I'm sorry if it was unclear. I don't think the title is the main problem, but rather a symptom thereof. We could rename the book, cut out the 95% that is the author's unsubstantiated view of The Way Things Are and rewrite the rest. I don't think it's worth it. Which parts of the book did you think were reliable? --Swift (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know anything about the subject to know what is reliable and verifiable. I just took the time to try to check the specific example you gave which appears to be true rather than false as you seemed to suspect. I thought a clarification of why you feel this book should be deleted would be helpful in knowing what to look for in making any decision. I wasn't trying to suggest or imply anything about the title of the book or the content of the book, but rather that the example you gave as being dubious appears to be true and verifiable. Perhaps the 95% of the views written about are not necessarily the author's views, but a common view shared by people who believe in psionics? Would it not be similar to having one book on Evolution and another book on Intelligent Design? Shouldn't the intended scope be considered? What makes 95% of the book unsalvageable? Why is Wikibooks better off with a fresh start? --darklama 15:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I would vote for deletion of any Intelligent Design work if not contextualized to indicate that it is not a scientific approach but one based on faith. --Panic (talk) 19:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

But it is not based on faith but philosophy, psychology and social science, nowhere in the text does it mention faith based. It was described as a secular thing using secular methods. Might I say I wasn't done citing sources but I had family issues to deal with along with a medical condition that kept me from finishing it. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

The argument isn't logically sound and the psychology isn't referenced. If your personal situation forbids you from contributing content that complies with Wikibooks policies, please wait until you have more time. Maybe you should be focusing more on other things than writing this module. --Swift (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I have cited psychological works in this VFD entry when I could have used the time to add them to this article. My disability and family life do not disqualify me from writing a book. It is just taking more time than I thought it would. Some of the techniques I have done myself with therapists in a hospital in November when I was hospitalized for two weeks due to my disability. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment I don't have a problem with the existence of this book on Wikibooks, but "psionics" is science fiction/fantasy/paranormal, it generally deals with mind powers like psychokinetic, mind reading, etc...

This is present in games, movies, books and other media but it has no scientific value nor has been proven real (most paranormal phenomena are just that, outside of science, they may be unexplained "magic" effects, mislabeled effects or pure fantasy). I've glanced at the book in question and it covers pseudo-psychology and the placebo effect under the label of psionics. Other books have been deleted as pseudoscience for much less, but the book could be fixed by making clear those aspect and covering the science fiction/fantasy also, like spoon bending...

I wouldn't have opposed the speedy, and I will not vote for keeping it in the present state. --Panic (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually Psionics means mind over matter in that positive thoughts helps one become happy and attracts positive people instead of negative people. It is not pseudoscience but I had to give credit to the people who invented the terms. It is more Psychology and psychosomatic reactions which can be proven in science. It even had a scientific experiment in it which the reader tries negative thoughts and positive thoughts and see which one works best for them, didn't you even bother to read that part? Please don't vote to delete just because you cannot understand what the book is about or you've confused it for pseudoscience. Orion Blastar (talk) 06:27, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I, for one, have read this book and came to the conclusion that it doesn't fit the scope of the project.

The "scientific experiment" described is subjective. No-one here will argue with you that the underlying premise (that happy thoughts induce a happy state) is valid. This is hardly a revolutionary idea, needs no new term and the description of "mind over matter" is dubious.

The "How to Fight Negative Thoughts" section is where this book goes beyond recovery. Here you're going to provide sources for your statements. You claim that your methods work, but beyond the tendancy described above you have not provided any proof how imagining an illusionary happy place will bring about lasting benefits in ones mental and physical health.

The next five sections are all equally problematic. I won't go into them here. I think I've demonstrated what sort of objections I have. --Swift (talk) 08:22, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

It is actually called self-hypnosis and it is a psychological term to imagine an imaginary happy place to calm oneself down. It is used in therapy as part of stress management or anger management. In fact the Wikibook Positive Psychology basically says the same things but is not up for deletion. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Again, no-one is debating that thoughts affect emotions. --Swift (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Then I don't understand the objection. Psychology talks about mind over matter which I mearly repeated, mind over matter in psychology can even avoid pain. Another source which basically says the same thing as the Wikibook about to be deleted. The five sections that are equally problematic haven't gone into details about the objections, so I don't understand why they are objected to as well? All of these new sources prove that my Book is not Pseudoscience but based on psychology. Orion Blastar (talk) 21:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to ask specific questions about the objections I've listed above. One fundamental fault is in the connection between the premise and the conclusion. Another problem is in your lack of definitions and choice of sources.

Each of the web-pages you linked to in the above comment has "mind over matter" in their titles, but is on different topics. The first is half a book review of the w:William A. Tiller et. al. Conscious Acts of Creation and half a discussion on w:Masaru Emoto's water crystals. The page presents no details of the author's methodology and is thus no more useful than a person's point of view. It concludes with the weak statement that the book "makes a convincing case that the powerful effects of intention and emotion can no longer be disregarded - in healing, in scientific research, or even in everyday life."

While this article can be found on numerous websites, the one you linked to should have raised immediate warning bells. The main page shows no credentials but advises to user to

"Go to this great site with snus, expresslån, bygga hus or Centro de Negocios"

This is where you get your psychology information from?

The weblog entry you linked to is a discussion of research on a technology that allows people to control their pain. While supporting the premise which is already well established, it doesn't in any way touch on the objectionable content that you wrote about (such as how skepticism "can lead to mental and physical illnesses"). One step at a time, Orion Blastar.

The third is an interesting page from the Discovery Education site that provides teachers with an outline for an excercise in the scientific method while tackling the question of how the mind remembers things. Read this one carefully, Orion Blastar, it mentions a number of pitfalls that it advises teachers to alert their students of.

In conclusion, the "science" you base your book on is unsupported by any scientific research. Read up on critisisms of the two gentlemen I linked to above. Despite their long-standing wish for scientific evidence none has come into existence. In that sense, mind is not over matter.

If you are really hungry for scientific evidence of the paranormal, you won't find much, I'm afraid. It might be time to realise that. After centuries of attempts to verify the existence of the paranormal and supernatural, despite countless accounts from witnesses, scientific research seems to come up short. There are serious attempts carried out all over the world (I met an interesting fellow doing research on precognition at UBC, Vancouver ... his research remains unverified and his positive results unreproducable, even by himself). The most serious group I've come across is the PEAR program at Princeton that has conducted some interesting research, but (like all those before it) has failed to convince the scientific community. Sorry to disappoint, but this stuff doesn't seem to exist. --Swift (talk) 11:20, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete There have been plenty of attempts to prove psychic powers. All have failed. This is beyond recovery. --Swift (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Pseudoscience has no place being paraded as factual in a textbook.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 22:26, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - as per Swift. --Jomegat (talk) 18:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep - I think you people are nuts this is not a psychic power but psychology and psychosomatic reactions that even one who took a Psychology 101 class can understand. For example if one thinks they are sick, they show signs of an illness even if they don't have the disease. This is a positive example of psychosomatic reactions, nothing more. You've turned it into a witch hunt, and totally attacked me personally as well as my writing. Orion Blastar (talk) 19:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Attention here we are only analyzing the content of the book the intention if not to be personal about any comments, sadly it is about your writing but publishing something will always generate criticism positive or otherwise, you must be prepared to take it. Here we do the work of an editor...

I definitively think that if a book has some positive features the person that has been working on it would defend it on a VFD, sadly it is very uncommon, and I recognize that it can be an uphill battle, kudos to you for defending your work. I'm still not convinced on the argumentation, probably because you link positive thinking with psionics, and spend part of the book connecting that rational, the book would indeed be less problematic if it was named Positive Mind Over Matter, but even then people would require some quotes and mention of studies, as you know this is a controversial field, so you ought to be expecting some of the remarks. I haven't voted yet and I will support the keep if you address some of these problems, reduce collage to psionics (sadly it doesn't really bring credibility to the argumentation) and mention some case studies (pro and con), the subject you are covering also touches stuff like the placebo effect or Homeopathy that is unsupported by scientific research. --Panic (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is being deleted because I quote in the VFD stamp comment “This is unadulterated claptrap and has no place in wikibooks. This article used the same weak reasoning employed by conspiracy theorists and mystics all over the world who want to portray themselves as the victims of intolerance. Well if being intolerant means sticking to high literary standards and employing reason instead of mysticism, then let us all embrace intolerance as a tool vital for staving off a return of the dark ages and delivering humanity safely into some kind of livable future. I'm very OPTIMISTIC and quite POSITIVE that mankind can improve himself by using reason and science, without resorting to re-branded witchcraft.” Which I believe is a violation of my civil rights by the United Nations and a personal attack on myself. I am not a witch and I do not practice withcraft, and you might have a civil lawsuit on your hands.Orion Blastar (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

I see, well you are giving to much importance to an anonymous user that tagged the work for deletion, Swift just restated it using a more constructive phrasing and initiated the VFD (speedy deletions initiated by anonymous users by nature lacks credibility, but Swift also though that there were reasons to proceed to a VFD), forget the personal comments the anonymous user made, since you can't and aren't expected to engage that particular user, and address what seems to me to be moderate and constructive criticism here, this discussion doesn't remove any value from your work even if deletion is the outcome, you can only read that outcome as a community decission that the work doesn't fit the Wikibooks project. --Panic (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This book is only going to be deleted if the community decides to delete it, based on an understanding of our norms and policy. If this book truly is pseudoscientific and unverifiable, then it is a policy violation and will be removed. This is for the community to decide here. Threatening to sue people over this is a quite ineffectual threat for reasons I could explain in private if you are interested. Not only that, but making these kinds of threats could be seen as a policy violation, so make sure to take a deep breath and calm down before posting replies. If you feel you've been a victim of a personal attack, there are methods to resolve that here in a reasonable and rational way. If you have any questions about any of this, let me know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I am new here but what do I do if I have personal attacks made against me, even if they are anonymous? It is the very negativism that I talked against in my Wikibook that is up for deletion. It only goes to prove how negative words hurt and positive words heal. Ironically my Wikibook has descriptions of how negative words do harm that seems to go with the policy here. That is not pseudoscience at all, but psychology and philosophy. I think pseudoscience is a term abused to censor people whom others disagree with. Orion Blastar (talk) 03:14, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

This article in under discussion for deletion. The arguments for bringing it to the attention here is given at the top. The bit you quote is from the earlier "speedy deletion" tag. That earlier tag recommended deleting this without discussion. I removed it and brought it here because I wanted to seek the community's opinion. Strange witch-hunt this that you describe.

You have brought no counter-arguments to our criticisms. No-one argues with the underlying principle introduced in the beginning sections. The problem is the direction that it takes into unverified territory. If you calm our concerns we may change our minds. This won't. --Swift (talk) 13:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki, and possibly rename. Admittedly I only skimmed through, but it didn't look overly mumbo-jumboish. However, the phrase "This is therefore a development of a theory that the power of positive thinking can bring about positive benefits" looks like an original research project to me, so Wikiversity might be a better venue. --SB_Johnny ^talk 00:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to WIkiversity, given the last posts on this VFD it clearly is a work based on original research, User:SB_Johnny points out the best solution. --Panic (talk) 04:32, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help:A quick guide to templates

This is largely redundant with the now trimmed down Help:Templates. I've been doing some browsing around our help pages which I find to be in somewhat of a disarray. Getting rid of this page would increase the accessibility of our help content. Swift (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Swift (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Finally some movement on getting our help pages up to snuff?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Keep Don't delete unless you have changed the important links to this page, in particular the link on Help:Contributing_to_Wikibooks. Should that link point to Help:Template or to Help:Templates? Those pages should be merged, cleaned-up and rewritten, right? Who is going to do that work? And if someone is doing it, he or she will also be able to merge it with this page. --Martin Kraus (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2008 (UTC) --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Links to this page will of course be updated if deleted. Doing so before wouldn't be right as there has been no decision to get rid of this content.Help:Contributing_to_Wikibooks actually links to Help:Template and I had already added merge tags to both it and Help:Templates. If there is content here that you'd like salvaged, we can even hold closing this debate until it is merged with the other two. --Swift (talk) 13:47, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since Help:Template has to be rewritten for clarity, I think it is good that Help:Contributing_to_Wikibooks also points to a shorter introduction to templates for "users" of templates. Help:Templates is probably a bad name for this, while Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates is a more appropriate title. Thus, I would be in favor of deleting Help:Templates and merging its content into Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates. This would avoid any confusion between Help:Templates and Help:Template. --Martin Kraus (talk) 14:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Any page on templates should be for users. Wikibooks help pages should not discuss technical details that are already (better and/or more appropriately) covered in Mediawiki documentation. Help:Template should eventually redirect to Help:Templates (or vice versa, if anyone has strong opinions on it). This title serves little or no purpose. --Swift (talk) 14:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was refering to "users" of templates in contrast to advanced "authors" of templates, i.e. people who mainly use existing templates and only occasionaly edit simple templates (without parameters). Well, what about this procedure: 1. merging Help:Templates and Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates under the title of the latter, 2. redirecting Help:Templates to Help:Template (or vice versa), 3. rewriting Help:Template, 4. a new discussion about deleting Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates based on the rewritten Help:Template --Martin Kraus (talk) 14:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikibookians in general. For technical specifications (including advanced features) template authors should, in my opinion, refer to the much more authoritative and extensive documentation elsewhere. I just found this discussion.

How about this: Merge the three (I don't think the page under discussion has anything to offer) under Help:Templates, redirect Help:Template to it and delete Help:A quick guide to templates. If you think we need anything advanced here locally, feel free to add that to Help:Advanced templates, but I would urge you rather to go to http://www.mediawiki.org and contribute there. --Swift (talk) 16:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

If the merge and the rewriting of Help:Template is done before the delete, I have no problem with it. I just prefer the Help:A quick guide to templates over Help:Templates (or Help:Templates Overview) because of 1) the formatting with italics for template names, 2) the explanation of subst, 3) the FAQ part, in particular the question about updates. On the other hand, Help:Templates seems to implicitly assume that you add templates only at the start of a page and I don't understand in which sense Template:Templatename should give the same result as {{Templatename}}; shouldn't it say that {{Template:Templatename}} gives the same result? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I've copyeditted the contents of this page into Help:Templates to reflect the proposed merger so people can see what it looks like, which is something anyone could of done. I also renamed the page to Help:Templates Overview in hopes of reducing confusion caused by having two similarly named pages. I support the proposed merger, and propose that this nomination be closed as merge and delete. Perhaps for now at lest Help:Templates and Help:Template should refer to the same page until a decision is reached on what to do with it. I think this nomination should stay focused on what to do with the quick guide. Even what name to use can be discussed later. --darklama 18:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know that it is fine to substantially change pages that are under discussion. I made some more changes to Help:Templates Overview. I agree with closing as merge and delete (or redirecting Help:A_quick_guide_to_templates to Help:Templates Overview). And I also agree that Help:Templates should redirect to Help:Template. --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:09, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Formatting_help

This is all superfluous or deprecated, and isn't integrated into the rest of the help pages. Swift (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete --Swift (talk) 03:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete - Finally some movement on getting our help pages up to snuff?  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 04:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete Strange page. --Martin Kraus (talk) 15:49, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree because the page is outdated and contains nothing not already covered by Help:Editing. --darklama 18:03, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Getting to Know You and Online Graphics

I found this two pages that are from the same Wikibookian User:Ricpierce (confusing redirects there), after tagging them for query the user elucidated me that they are intended to be content for a online course. Given the format the content is presented and the requirements of interaction, I do think that Wikiversity project would be a better location for this effort.
I have to admit that I advance this VFDs as to reduce the time I would have to take to impart that information and argue the point with the user, so I made no attempt for direct dialog. Just checked if the user was Welcomed and had the basic information on Wikibooks. --Panic (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki Wikiversity. --Panic (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki to Wikiversity. Both appear to be intended as learning projects rather than book material. --darklama 21:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A Textbook on Recovery Psychology

Original research, from top to bottom (as stated by the sole contributor). I know it seems harsh to delete a whole book, but I don't think this is salvageable. The only mentions for this subject in the whole of "Google Land" are Wikibooks, Wikiversity and Recovery Psychology, who are the sole promoters of the idea and the author of this Wikibook. I think this is pseudo-science and should go before it deceives people. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

comment This is a tough one — not the least because it is verbose, but also because its a fairly specialised field. It doesn't seem to be completely original research, the main page describes it as a "philosophical interpretation of the recovery movement", some parts seem to be fairly well cited and it appears to be largely a critique of over-reliance on medication and an advocacy of psycology over psychietry. I am concerned that the term seems to have been coined by a non-professional in the field (this Loren Booda?) and by the bias shown. It would be useful if others could find the time to look into this and weigh in. --Swift (talk) 16:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

keep - seems like it should at least be within the scope of Wikibooks. Or else, transfer it to Wikiversity. Emesee (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's already on Wikiversity (and on their own web site where they boast that "nobody has challenged it yet on Wikiversity!", which suggests they think it's "dodgy"). Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 11:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Programming_ai:ch1_nn

A set of 5 redirects, including: Programming_ai:ch2_nn, Programming_ai:ch3_nn, Programming_ai:ch4_nn, Programming_ai:ch5_nn. These were the original titles of several artificial intelligence/neural network modules, later moved. Reasons to support deleting:

• poorly named
• orphans
• redirect to nothing in particular (if you follow the double redirect)

With their non-descriptive names, and a possible three-way merge into Artificial Intelligence, I think they'll never point exactly where they intended. Mrwojo (talk) 04:52, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete Artificial Intelligence/Neural Networks/Introduction has the funniest links tree. There's nothing wrong with leaving redirects, but this is just confusing. It might also be worth considering deleting all of the Computer Programming/AI links as well. --Swift (talk) 05:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Mrwojo (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

I think these met the usual criteria for speedy deletion, so I've gone ahead and done just that. Unless I missed something I didn't see any particular need for these to be brought up here. In the future poorly named orphaned redirects can simply be marked for speedy deletion instead: {{delete|orphaned and poorly named redirect}}. --darklama 15:08, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course they were all created when the book was moved to a new name twice... I won't feel bad if you delete them, even though I spent 45 minutes fixing them all! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 15:27, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

That's reasonable. I figured I'd test the water first because redirects can be considered a special case. --Mrwojo (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mac OS X Tiger Server

In 19 December 2008 I merged the content of this stub (frozen since 2006) with the Mac OS X Tiger since the scopes were to similar to validate a distinct project. I requested a edit history merge and tagged it for deletion, since the acting admin thought that since there wasn't a previous merge tag the speedy delete was premature and reverted it, the edit history of the now replicated content does still need at least the edit merge, and as I don't see the point of keeping the content duplicated I propose this vfd discussion, to resolve any problem the original project creators may have to the deletion of the original page. --Panic (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete after the edit history is merged. --Panic (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment It states in Mac OS X Tiger#About Mac OS X Server that Mac OS X Tiger Server as a module is supposed to cover different material to Mac OS X Tiger. In fact it looks like the Server module is intended to be part of the overall book, rather than a different book. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

You lost me there, the OS is the same but the version seems to be distinct (they share most of the software features, but server does provide some other functionalities), I merged it in accord to that last bit "the Server module is intended to be part of the overall book" by creating a section to add the subject (I did not haphazardly mix it with the rest of the content). --Panic (talk) 23:51, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

That difference could be very well what was intended to make this book different from the other one. I think this one is intended to be aimed at server administration of servers running MacOS X Server, while the other one is probably intended more for End Users who are using MacOS on a personal computer. A MacOS X Server could be headless, while a MacOS X for everyday use would likely include a monitor, a mouse, and a keyboard. Personally I think both books need to be renamed to use MacOS X rather than Mac OS X, and Tiger removed from the name, since Tiger is too narrow a scope which would easily make both books dated quickly. --darklama 00:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, lacking clarity. I meant it looked to me like the original creator expected the content to be distinct rather than a duplication and therefore perhaps they should remain distinct. I'm not arguing against merging or arguing for keeping them separate, it was just a comment on your comment the scopes were to similar to validate a distinct project. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 00:26, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Yup, my action was only based on the content and activity on both books, I doubt that editors of Mac OS X Tiger Server will object to the merge and deletion, we are talking about a single active user in 2006 that created a stub (not big on real content), so if the VFD is not opposed I would also support the rename Darklama advances above, the Tiger bit is a bit unnecessary today, but it would better be something that adds to th subject something like "Understanding OS X" or "Using...", or something that clear the subject to other more distinct approaches, but preserves the subject for a category that can incorporate more books on OS X, even removing Mac should be ok, I think since the OS works on non Mac hardware, and other non computer Apple Hardware, for instance it would enable aggregation with Darwin, Apple TV and iPhone material, in any case this should be put on a back burner until the VFD ends and it's first discussed on the Mac OS X Tiger book. --Panic (talk) 00:52, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Help:Books

Another redundant help page. Created by CR ( talk | email | contribs ) as Wikibooks:Books and later moved by Jguk. The definition is on Wikibooks:Glossary, the naming convention on WB:NP and the template on Wikibooks:Template_messages/Navigation. See some relevant discussion on the talk page (which should maybe be copied in with this discussion when archived if deleted). Swift (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Swift (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:33, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki:Discretionary Will

Not sure if we need to VfD Transwikis, but here we go just in case!

I was looking at cleaning this up, but actually all of the material is now redundant. UK Inheritance Tax law was changed as of October 2007 to allow the transfer of unused IHT allowances between spouses and civil partners (details here. The process being described in this book is no longer of any use - it doesn't reduce IHT liability. This is defunct. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete as nominator Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:31, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I do think we need to discuss any deletions that don't qualify for speedy deletions. Thanks for bringing it here.

Might this ever be of interest for people studying Taxation in the United Kingdom? Maybe we should move it to that book and leave it as a comparison example to current law. --Swift (talk) 02:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There's a thought. I'll take a look tomorrow to see if it would fit in - it can probably be reworded, as you suggest, to an historical perspective. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:32, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn I followed Swift's excellent suggestion. Modified it to reflect current law regarding trusts (i.e., not applicable to married / civil partners but applicable to non married couples) and moved into main space as part of the Taxation in the United Kingdom book. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 10:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Voyage Century Online

I'm not a big opponent of these games guides, but since it's going to come under review sooner or later, I figured I'd start this right away before people spend too much time on it. Swift (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

A note to prospective "voters": Despite the name of this page, decisions are not made by ballot alone, but primarily on the quality of the arguments raised. We have policies that dictate what is acceptable and what not. We're all glad that you find this site and community valuable. Please take the time to read up on the policies that the community has decided on. The top of this very page is a good start. --Swift (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete --Swift (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I desire to keep this book not only because made it but also because it helps a lot of my friends on the game Voyage Century Online. This book is almost complete in french (I'm the author of it too). I don't know why, in this English version of Wikibooks it couldn't be allow. If I'm not welcome here I don't know where I could post my work. Hope it will stay here, thank you for reading this. DJ K-Jtan (talk) 00:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't know how you do it on, but I'm afraid that deletion discussions here require arguments to be made in reference to policies. In the rationale for this nomination (which I hope you read) lies the answer where you may take your content. Finding it is left to the reader as an excercise in understanding Wikibooks. --Swift (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect - after a comment of DavidCary (talk) on (my talk section), I'll transfer my book on Strategywiki. I didn't know a such wiki like that existe. How long can my book stay on wikibooks before I loose all my work ??? DJ K-Jtan (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, no-one's in a rush to get rid of this. Deletion discussions can take a while, so we can leave this unresolved for a few weeks, depending on how long you need. Please let us know when you've finished moving the book. --Swift (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok Thanks a lot DJ K-Jtan (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete I'm thinkin' that this falls under the rule against strategy guides. I don't know that the rule is any different on the French Wikibooks, but content on the English Wikibooks needs to follow the English Wikibooks' guidelines. It can always be taken to Strategywiki or somewhere similar, so the work isn't necessarily in vain, and it's not necessarily a useless project. This just isn't the right place for it. RT Jones (talk) 01:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Keep - I think the book should be kept because those of us who play voyage century online do not have enough resources to help us out in game. This wikibook has helped me on more occasions then I can tell you. I like using wikibooks, cause it's easy to navigate, and I would use it more if they allowed stuff like this. I dont see why this book would be a bad thing!IronRapp (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2009 (UTC)IronRapp/* Voyage Century Online */ For those of us who use Wikibooks, please reconsider your decision to wipe this out. I only think it helps people and it does not offer "Cheats" so why would allowing this book violate any rules? Anyway, my vote is to keep it.

Comment Useful or not, it is in violation of policy. --Swift (talk) 06:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WB:GUIDE. A shame to discoutage active contributors, but there you go. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 09:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Delete. We've been very lenient and supportive of game guides in the past. They can't stay here because of policy, but that doesn't mean that they need to be deleted/destroyed on sight. I suggest a move to strategywiki if possible, or maybe one of the video-game related Wikia websites. It's interesting to me that these guides are allowed on FR.wikibooks. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:18, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Buried somewhere above, he says he's going to move it to Strategywiki, been assured he'll be given time in which to do so, and agreed that he'll let us know when he's done moving it. Pi zero (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI: I Started the reloacation of Voyage Century Online on Voyage Century strategywiki guide, I think it's a good thing to let you know. DJ K-Jtan (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Done transferring all the book. You can click here to see this guide. Thank you for time you leave me to transfer this book. DJ K-Jtan (talk) 22:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CCNA Certification/Section 1 - RIP and CCNA Certification/Section 2 - IGRP

CCNA Certification/Section 1 - RIP is an exact copy, unlinked to book, of CCNA Certification/Routing Protocols/RIP

CCNA Certification/Section 2 - IGRP is an exact copy, unlinked to book, of CCNA Certification/Routing Protocols/IGRP Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 21:57, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] CCNA Certification/Chapter 1 - The OSI Model

Orphaned, abandoned, superseded by CCNA Certification/The OSI Model Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] F Sharp/License

Orphaned and an exact copy of the (not orphaned) F Sharp Programming/License. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 22:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Category:A-Level Mathematics

There is a similar category,, only difference being the lower case "l", with more than 100 books / modules / pages in it. The one I am proposing for deletion (the upper case L one) had 16 in it, which were all also in the lower case category. I've removed them from it, making the one I'm proposing for deletion empty. I think it is unhelpful having two categories like this as it splits up pages that should be consolidated... Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 23:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)