Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

Icon usage

• {{subst:icon|info}} - important facts
• {{subst:icon|keep}} - keep work
• {{subst:icon|merge}} - merge work
• {{subst:icon|transwiki}} - copy to another wiki
• {{subst:icon|delete}} - delete work
• {{subst:icon|redirect}} - delete and redirect
• {{subst:icon|comment}} - neutral opinion

Undeletion

Add a new entry

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.

Transwiki:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances

This page had several years of editing on English Wikipedia, then was moved over to Wikibooks. I'm an admin on enwiki, so I've undeleted the parent article on enwiki and put it the Draft namespace over to decide what do with the prose (see w:Draft:Effects of different voting systems under similar circumstances). I think it would be possible to create a coherent book about voting systems using this example to tie together the explanations of various voting systems. Since I'm not an admin on English Wikibooks, I can't see what work was done after the move was performed, so I'd like to see what (if anything) other folks were able to do with the material after the move. -- RobLa (discuss • contribs) 21:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @RobLa! It looks like it was deleted in 2012 because it was never worked on after the initial import. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:51, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, @Kittycataclysm! Could you undelete it? I'd like to work on it. I didn't have time to work on it when it was moved, but I have time now. -- RobLa (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@RobLa: I've userfied it for you. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

[[File:Nuvola French flag.svg]] 2600:1700:D480:A020:B046:89CA:1E3E:FF9D (discuss) 18:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Mass undeletion of books that were deleted when strategy guides were not allowed.

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

Not done —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

---

Couldn't we just mass undelete these books? Garfieldcat1978 (discuss • contribs) 18:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC) Letting bot archive as needed.

Listing which works would be much better.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 22:51, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Redirects created by myself

I am proposing to undelete Cookbook:Dark chocolate chips, Cookbook:Peanut butter and Cookbook:Food coloring because in my opinion I believe it is necessary due to the pipe trick. For example, I entered [[Cookbook:Food coloring|]], which gives you Food coloring, which is currently a red link, so I created this redirect to Cookbook:Food Coloring. What are your thoughts? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

This is a good question! When I started out in the cookbook several years ago, I also created redirects like this. However, I was told at the time that Wikibooks does not use redirects in this way. I am open to further discussion about this, especially with the Cookbook, since it does not function like the other books on the project. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Wikibooks doesn't allow redirects in mainspace. However, as in Cookbook:Grunt Work, redirects are allowed in Cookbook namespace. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 16:07, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. In terms of my personal opinion, I am currently neutral about redirects like this. I do think having these redirects can be helpful in some cases, especially given the wide range of terminologies used in cooking and the collaborative nature of the cookbook. However, excessive and unnecessary redirects (e.g. with all potential capitalization options) can create clutter. And, if I recall correctly, it's generally best practice to never link directly to redirect pages, instead linking to the correct end-page and subsection as appropriate. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

@Leaderboard, @SHB2000, @WhatamIdoing: pinging users since these users didn't participate this undeletion request in almost 2 weeks. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

@Xeverything11 I don't get the relevance of the pipe trick with this. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 15:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't either. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would be a problem to link directly to a redirect page. The wikitext doesn't care; the parser doesn't care. I'm not sure why anyone would create a rule against it. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:55, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

IMO I will have to concur with WhatamIdoing that it's a terrible rule, especially all the more that WP:CHEAP and makes these books more accessible (broken redirects can always be dealt with later); that still said I will say no to restoring these redirects until we get the policy changed. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@MarcGarver I believe you were the one who originally told me about the avoidance of redirects at this project. Do you know what the original reasoning was? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's all down to books v articles. A book is supposed to be self-contained. So, a redirect from an alternative BOOK title to the actual book is okay - e.g., from "Fizzicks" to "Physics". But redirects that go to one page in a book are discouraged as it is creating a structure more like individual articles and creates pages that shouldn't exist. E.g., we don't have a standalone page called "Heat exchange", it's a subpage of Physics, Physics/Heat Exchange". Following the same philosophy you wouldn't have a redirect from "heat exchange" because things that aren't subpages should be books, and there is no book about heat exchange. Similarly, cross namespace redirects were discouraged (e.g., from mainspace to the cookbook space) as the cookbook is supposed to be one, very large, self contained book. Anyway, if I recall correctly, that was the theory. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

It sounds like they don't want Heat exchange to redirect to Physics/Heat exchange, because someone might later want to write a whole book about Heat Exchange.

That rationale has nothing to do with redirects for alternate (i.e., wrong) capitalization, which I believe is the question here. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I think my personal opinions regarding linking are as follows:

• I agree with keeping books separate from each other and therefore agree that simple inter-book linking and inter-project linking should not be done within actual content pages. For example, if a book on philosophy used the word "physics" somewhere in the text, that word should not be wikilinked to Physics. Exceptions could be deliberate connections/references to another book (e.g. "see-also" or "further reading" chapters separate from the main content).
• The cookbook has, for over a decade, been operating slightly differently from the other books in the project. It is its own subproject, which is reflected in the namespace and the way it uses categories. It is also a massive work that is continuously expanding through small additions by various contributors, and its pages are deeply interconnected with each other. Additionally, words for many of the concepts discussed in the cookbook have different names and are different in various cultures—redirects prevent incorrect linking and the creation of pages that already exist. For these reasons, I think it's okay to create redirects for its frequently-used subpages (e.g. ingredient/equipment/technique pages) that are often linked to in recipes.

Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

+2. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Since there seems to be consensus here, I've codified this at Cookbook:Policy#Redirects —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Atlas Shrugged/Places

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

Undeleted to undo the invalid reason to deletion--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

---

This page was transwikied from the English Wikipedia after an AfD, but unilaterally deleted by Hagindaz on the grounds that it was an "out-of-date copy of [a] Wikipedia article." This is not a valid speedy deletion criterion, and there was no RfD. Additionally, the nonexistence of this page poses an obstacle in the process of removing all of the Wikipedia links in Atlas Shrugged. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Deletion

Add a new entry

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.

Files from Illustrated Guide to the world of Spira (FFX and FFX-2)

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

Deleted for lack of a valid NFCC. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

Used for decorative, not educational, purposes: File:Float 13.jpg, File:Grabbed Frame 15.jpg, File:Gandof.jpg, File:Ohalland.jpg, File:Braskascan1.jpg, File:Tidus FFX.png (WB:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I think I can agree on the removal of these 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Various pages in Basics of fine-art photography

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

consensus to delete MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

---

The following pages in Basics of fine-art photography seem out of scope because they consist entirely of personal promotion/advertisement for the author's photography:

• Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians II
• Basics of fine-art photography/Lights of Moscow
• Basics of fine-art photography/Ethiopia through the eyes of traveler
• Basics of fine-art photography/On the roads of India
• Basics of fine-art photography/14 days in Mongolia
• Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians III
• Basics of fine-art photography/Hitchhiking across Sudan
• Basics of fine-art photography/January in Japan
• Basics of fine-art photography/Uganda: tribes and civilization
• Basics of fine-art photography/Tribes of Kenya
• Basics of fine-art photography/Afghanistan, 2008

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, the entire book appears to be a vehicle for the author to promote his own photography. The few sentences of instructional content on pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Creating works in macro photography are practically useless; that one amounts to "to take macro photos, set your camera to macro mode and hold it close to the subject, or read another book for more information". Other pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Interior photography in hobo tours or Basics of fine-art photography/Taking pictures of homeless people provide essentially no information on photography technique at all, and seem to mostly be intended as jumping-off points to showcase more of the author's photos. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Half-Life Computation

Doesn't seem in-scope as a book—just seems like a single page on how to do a specific calculation. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -You have to consider also that projects can be merged (I have not checked if there is a possible match) in any case consider it a stub with valid content. It is a stub (November 2018) there is the problem of a namespace collision since it identifies as a specific topic (but as you identified is a very limited scope). Had I the time I would create a structure around it and contribute to it in the subject of Entropy or how our non-existing reality, is also "evaporating" into nothing...

Stubs are promoters to growth, like particles to rain... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

• Merge I agree this is not a book by itself, but lots of books have a section about how to calculate half-life stuff -- including some already on Wikibooks: A-level Physics (Advancing Physics)/Half-lives, What You Should Know About Medicines/Half life, or how often to take it, Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine/The Radioactive Decay Law#Half-Life, AP Chemistry/Nuclear Chemistry#Half Life, A-level Physics/Forces, Fields and Energy/Radioactivity#Half-life, A-level Mathematics/OCR/C3/Special Functions and Transformations#Example of Half-life decay, Introduction to Radioisotope Geochronology/Part Two - Principles of Radioisotopic Dating#Decay Constants and Half Lives, etc. Perhaps this is common enough that Half-Life Computation could be merged/moved into a page of Engineering Tables so that it could be shared across several Wikibooks, in the same way that the ASCII table in Engineering Tables is already shared across several Wikibooks. --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Kashubian Dictionary

Out of scope here; material should be hosted at Wiktionary (I've suggested it there). —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Any content in this dictionary should be already be at wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requested entries (Kashubian)/Kashubian Dictionary, where we will be able to slowly make entries for these. Vininn126 (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Chinese Checkers

Extremely minimal content and abandoned for almost 20 years. Was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 but kept on the grounds that it could be expanded—clearly this has not happened. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

• Keep . Having played this game, I do not consider the content minimal.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 04:07, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Global Illumination and HDRI Maps in 3D Studio Max

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

Was closed in January —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Abandoned >1 decade; one chapter only, which contains only a handful of sentences. Not enough content and no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The only subpage is this: Global Illumination and HDRI Maps in 3D Studio Max/HDRI Maps. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pages in Security+ Certification

Both Security+ Certification/Threats and Vulnerabilities and Security+ Certification/Network Security seem to be deprecated per @Tule-hog's recent overhaul; moreover, the pages in question seem to consist entirely of outlinks to Wikipedia. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

IB Textbook Reviews

Very little meaningful educational content; seems like opinion at most? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - agreed; this is nothing more than a collection of book reviews. Given that much of the page was written 10-15+ years ago, I suspect that a lot of these books are no longer in print, or have changed substantially since they were reviewed. (Most of these books are exam guides, which tend to be short-lived.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

English-Arabic dictionary

Out of scope at Wikibooks since this is already completely covered by Wiktionary. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment English-Arabic dictionary/Colors in Arabic gets a nontrivial amount of traffic (~50 views/day). It'd be nice if we could at least preserve this as a redirect to an equivalent resource. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: a book selecting vocabulary into introductory groups is very different from a lexical database such as Wiktionary. In Wiktionary, one does not know where to start learning the vocabulary. Admittedly, the title gives excessively broad scope, so something should probably be done. (The argument with 50 views/day has some force.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:48, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Valgrind

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

Was closed in January —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; very little content; unclear scope; no path forward for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - readers would be much better off with Valgrind's own quick start guide (which is even freely licensed). Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Metroid

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

Was closed in January —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Abandoned; main page only; no meaningful content; no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom; could be speedy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Radiata Stories

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

Was closed in January —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:40, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Abandoned; little to no meaningful content; one page only with little content; no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. The one existing subpage is Radiata Stories/Character Recruitment. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dialect

Scope unclear; abandoned with no plan for development; little to no meaningful content; most pages qualify for speedy anyway. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

UNIX Basics

Abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete : no meaningful content. A bit of meaningful content is in Guide to Unix. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

How to Write a Compiler

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom: almost no meaningful content. No further reading. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Script Languages Synopsis

Abandoned >1 decade; little content; unclear path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

CompTIA Certifications

Network+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

Security+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

A+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

De-duplicating work across Wikimedia. Subpages should all be deleted as well. Might be worth leaving a redirect to WV for future users. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

I centralized at Wikiversity since the projects (as of now) are compendiums of links and resources based on the listed objectives of each exam, sometimes with explicitly suggested 'activities'. Very little in the way of 'book'-like exposition. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Thought about leaving a {{MovedToWikiversity}} but that template has been deleted in the past. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 02:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

If all the content has indeed moved over to Wikiversity, I'm not sure we need to keep these here, especially given their quality. Cheers –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikiversal generated pages

• Wiki Assistant
• User Page Builder

  Inexplicably, the links on the main page of this book all point to pages under w:User:Hazel45onnie/User Page Builder on the English Wikipedia. I'm nominating those pages for deletion on enwiki as a separate process (here).

• WikiverSuite/Wikiversant/Gunport Builder Demo 1
• Wiki Tutorial

  Some of the internal links in this book are written as if the book is named Tutorial instead of Wiki Tutorial. You may have to use Special:Prefixindex/Wiki Tutorial to read through the whole thing.

These books were all generated using Wikiversal, a third-party wiki editing tool written by User:Planotse which is no longer downloadable. Many of them contain broken internal links or other outdated content (like references to Wikiversity being a subproject of Wikibooks), and the HTML-heavy markup generated by Wikiversal makes them unreasonably difficult to edit.

(As as aside, the markup used for these "presentations" is completely broken on the mobile site, e.g. [1]. For some reason, the forward/back buttons are invisible, making it impossible to navigate from page to page.)

The first three books are all instructions on how to use Wikiversal itself. Since it's no longer available, they are of no use. The fourth, while described as a "Wiki tutorial", primarily instructs users to use Wikiversal to build pages on the wiki; its main page should probably be redirected to Using Wikibooks as a much more comprehensive resource.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't inexplicable that these pages and links are on the English Wikipedia. The spammers who developed these pages were primarily trying to peddle software for use on the English Wikipedia. Their pages on the English Wikipedia are also pending deletion as misusing Wikipedia for web hosting. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Based on the name and some of the user's (now deleted) activity on Wikiversity, I think the software was actually intended primarily for use on Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. Why they decided to host some of its documentation on Wikipedia is a mystery. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

It isn't worth trying to explain the behavior of spammers. Sometimes the explanation is stupidity and greed. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

I haven't yet looked at the deletion request here. I am primarily an English Wikipedia editor, just as User:Omphalographer is primarily a Commons editor. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete All - Spam. These books were created twelve years ago to peddle software to new users. This was an abuse of Wikimedia for commercial purposes. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Salute, Jonathan! and its translations

Alo, Jonathan!

Bune Ğonatan!

Dag, Jonathan!

Glidis, o Jonathan!

Hai, Jon!

Hallo, Jonathan!

Haloo, Jonatan!

Hay, Jonathan!

Hej, Jonathan! (Germanisch)

Hej, Jonathan!

Hela, Jonathan!

Holo, Jonathan!

Oila, Jonatan!

Salam, Jonathan!

Salom, Jonatan!

Salu, Jon!

Salut Jonathan!

Salute, Jonathan!

Salut, Jonathan! (Interocidental)

Salut, Jonathan!

Salut, ionatano!

Salute, Jonathan! (Novlingue)

Salute, Jonathan! (Romanica)

Saluto, Jonathan! (Ido)

Saluto, Jonathan!

Sesan Jon!

Simi, Jonathan!

Sin Chao, Jonathan!

Terve, Jonathan!

Toki a, jan Jonatan!

Àlŏ, Jonathan!

Òla, Ionatà!

There are a couple of issues here:

1. Beyond their introductions, all of these books are written in languages which are not English, making them out of scope for the English Wikibooks.
2. All but one of these books are in fact written in constructed languages, most of them in recently created conlangs. In some cases (e.g. Sin Chao, Jonathan!), I can't find any reliable sources describing the target language outside of the translation itself.
3. Most of the translations (i.e. other than Salute, Jonathan! itself) were abandoned within the first five or so chapters (out of 100); none of them are complete, and there seems to be little effort to complete any of them.

While I recognize that this is an unusual project, and potentially one which could have some value, it's not at all clear to me that the English Wikibooks is the right place for it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not sure what to do about these ones. While I recognize that this approach is certainly one method of teaching a language, I'm not sure that it constitutes an educational textbook. We do require that the English Wikibooks be written in English—for language-learning books, this typically means that the instructional parts are in English while the exercises are in the language being taught. I do think that if the language doesn't have much supporting evidence outside the book itself, it can safely be deleted. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:01, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Author of the book here. I originally wanted to put it in the Interlingue Wikibooks https://ie.wikibooks.org/wiki/Principal_p%C3%A1gine but it somehow got locked when I wasn't paying attention and so I ended up putting it here. Getting it unlocked requires going through the process of starting an Incubator and all the rest so I opted for here and then started putting some English-only content once it was done. It's sort of in the same vein as books like Lingua Latina per se Illustrata that have separate versions with teacher notes and whatnot. Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 1 - with notes After it was done the auxlang community really took to it which was a nice surprise. I think Ido has the largest number of chapters at the moment at 15.

If the vast content of this book could be used to justify a quick reopening of the Interlingue Wikibooks to move it there, I'd love to do that. I imagine that an incubator with 100+ book chapters would be enough to open a Wikibooks and that's what this is.

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 06:02, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I just realized that we do have a proposal to reopen the Interlingue Wikibooks: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikibooks_Interlingue along with an Incubator page here. https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wb/ie/Principal_p%C3%A1gine

How easy would it be to migrate the entirety of Salute Jonathan to there? Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 06:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Mithridates! I'm not sure how incubator projects work, but I fully support migrating these books there. You may want to inquire over there and link to this discussion to support your request to move the content over there. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi!

Actually I have a third idea to propose after thinking about this again today (haven't been here much since I finished the book): I noticed that there is more English content than I remember and that might make it an awkward fit for the Interlingue Wikibooks. I definitely agree that having all the auxlang translations for new auxlang projects goes well beyond the scope of this Wikibooks. Finally, there are some auxlangs that are notable with their own Wikipedias.

So the idea is the following:

1 Leave the original here and I can continue the work on the version with English notes and grammar. That will make it the same as Lingua Latina per se Illustrata, English by the Nature Method, Athenaze and all the rest.

2 The Interlingua one can move to the Interlingua Wikibooks (maybe Romanica too if they want as it is sort of a dialect of Interlingua).

3 For Ido and Lingua Franca Nova which have a Wikipedia but not a Wikibooks, I'm a little bit unsure...technically they could have their own version like the original one but would require English explanations. I could let them know and see if they are willing to do so and see what they think (work on adding English to the books vs. move the content elsewhere).

4 The rest can move to a Github repo, then be deleted, and the front page of this book can have a single link to the repo.

Any thoughts on that? Adding the extra English content will be easy as it is my book and I know it inside and out. Edit: this page I just added.

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to consider this! Here are my responses/questions:

• Is the original Salute, Jonathan! (Occidental)? Since that one is quite fleshed out, I agree that if you edit it so the primary language of the book (e.g. headers, instructions, etc) are written in English while leaving the actual story in Occidental, it would be okay and fit in more with instructional language textbooks.
• For your points 2 and 3, I'm not sure how those other projects work, so I'll leave it up to them. I'm not quite sure why they would need to move, since in theory they could be revised with English as the language of instruction? Although, they have been left incomplete for a long time.
• For your point 4, I have no problem with that.

Cheers! –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello again,

It's the weekend so I have a bit more time to work on this. I've decided to merge the extra content from the following five chapters since the difference is fairly small and the original chapters should now have this English content. Could you delete these five pages now that they are no longer needed? Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 1 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 2 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 3 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 4 - with notes

Salute, Jonathan!/Capitul 5 - with notes Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Done —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:34, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi again! No luck trying to find a home for the random language translations on other auxlang wikis, can't find one that is actively maintained.

The thought struck me that maybe I could just put those ones on a sub page of my user page, would that be permitted? If not, I think I'll just stick them somewhere in GitHub and call it a day since none of the people who started the translations seem to care enough to do anything about them. I'd rather not see them outright disappear but since they aren't mine I don't care enough about them to do much more work than copy and paste them somewhere.

(I would leave the ones in languages with an ISO-639 code and Wikipedia here, of course)

Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for checking! I don't personally see an issue with moving them to your user space right now. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've started a single page where I will put them all here User:Mithridates/SJ and will proceed slowly due to lack of time and also to avoid stepping on any toes / asking you to delete too much at a time and possibly deleting the wrong content.

For this week I have put the content for the languages Audia, Cristianès, Guosa, Lingaust, Mini, Mirad, and Monav on that page as they all have a single page of content and didn't take much time to move. Please delete those. Once they are gone I will add a note on the main page letting people know where they have gone (in addition to a thank you for their interest in the book! I do love how many people have recognized it as a good source material for teaching a language). Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep the translations for languages that have an article on the English Wikipedia, i.e. Guosa, Idiom Neutral, Ido, Interlingua, Lingwa de Planeta, Negerhollands, Neo, Novial, Occidental, Romanica, Solresol, Toki Pona, and Volapük.

Translations for languages that don't have an article can be kept if they have reliable sources, which I was able to find for the following languages (if you think they are not reliable, please let me know):

• Globasa: [2] [3]
• Mini: [4] [5] [6]

Delete and move to User:Mithridates/SJ the rest of the translations, i.e. Audià/Audian, Cristianés, Ekumenski, Germanisch, Interocidental, Lingaust, Lingue Simple, Masa Tang, Mirad, Monav, Monkel, Mundeze, Nordien, Novlingue, Numo, Proyo, and Scuian/Meteza. If you can find reliable sources for those languages, please let me know.

In particular, I could not find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav after searching through 15 and 17 pages on Google, respectively. It doesn't help that their translations don't explain what those languages are and where to find resources for them. This makes contributing to those translations almost impossible until @Caro de Segeda can provide resources to us. It's possible that the resources may have disappared from the Internet, or that those languages were created by Caro de Segeda him/herself. If you can find resources for Audià/Audian and Monav, please let me know.

I'm notifying the primary contributors of the translations: @Caro de Segeda, @Frzzl, @Greatscotteh, @IHateNumbers234, @Jayeless2, @Morozof, @Omnihom, @Omoutuazn, @PovriNaivon, @Sir Beluga and @Tyoyafud. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 09:52, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Caro de Segeda said on Reddit that Monav was created by him/her and that he/she didn't publish any resources about it other than Hai, Jon!. With zero other resources to rely on for contributing to the translation, and the fact that Monav is in User:Mithridates/SJ, Hai, Jon! should be speedy deleted. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I've undone the speedy deletion as Caro de Segeda posted a resource for Monav. EJPPhilippines (discuss • contribs) 07:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

You can delete all the ones that I have created myself, I have already moved them to other places. Caro de Segeda (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Stellar Scintillation

Extremely narrow scope that I don't think is quite book-worthy, especially given the low amount of content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

IB Spanish

Abandoned 2 decades; seems like an idea for a book that was never actually implemented (minimal meaningful content) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:55, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Competitive Programming

Survived deletion previously on the justification that it could potentially be expanded, but it's since been over a decade with no improvement; extremely minimal educational content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Pages by User:TheoYalur

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

closed complete —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Henri Poincaré Reader
• The Sight and Sound of the Greek Genocide Around the Kültürpark in Izmir
• God Disorder

These pages all appear to be personal essays, not educational texts. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

They are all original research. The editor asked to be unblocked so they could move to Wikiversity where OR is permitted. As they have now returned to creating these dubious pages, I have blocked them again and deleted the most recent creation as out of scope original research. The "reader" might be acceptable. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:37, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @MarcGarver! I'm not sure about Henri Poincaré Reader since it has NPOV issues and it reads like a self-published essay piece with personal hypothesizing/opinion/research, no references, etc. Its educational scope is still somewhat unclear, as is the structure—it does not seem textbook-like in form or style. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

You spent more time reading it than me I suspect. I only skimmed it, but I am sure you are right that it has the same issues as the other creations and should be deleted. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 16:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

With regard to the "Reader", at best it's a collection of loosely translated excerpts of texts which, for the most part, already have quality translations available on Wikisource. For instance, the section Henri Poincaré Reader#The Measure of Time (1898) is already translated as s:The Foundations of Science/The Value of Science/Chapter 2. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:39, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Cyber Guide to ODU Career Management

As best I can tell, this was intended at one point to be an internal resource for employees of an ODU (Old Dominion University) career office; what little of it exists is primarily focused on minutae irrelevant to anyone outside that office, like who to email to schedule an information session or a collection of meeting notes. It's also all been essentially untouched since 2007. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Golf

Extremely minimal content; educational/book scope is unclear; abandoned for >1 decade. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Counterterror Joint Command

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

Deleted. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 03:01, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Unclear how this falls into WB scope—doesn't seem to be an educational book, and educational scope is undefined; abandoned as well —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - this is perplexing; it's written like a policy proposal on behalf of an agency, not a textbook. From context I think it's about the w:National Police Agency (Taiwan), but it's entirely unclear whether this was intended as an official report or some sort of weird fan fiction. Either way, it doesn't belong here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Flight Attendant Manual

Abandoned almost 2 decades; consists only of a list of country codes and the phonetic alphabet. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

History of the ODU Art Department

A collection of fragmentary biographies and interviews of members of the ODU (Old Dominion University) art department. Some of these are individually interesting, I guess, but they don't really add up to a history of the department, let alone to an instructional text. Most editing activity appears to have been around 2008-09; there's almost no activity since then. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have to agree here. And, issues with the book's suitability for inclusion here have been raised on the talk page since its beginning. I'm concerned that this ultimately violates WB:WIW, and I can't see it being properly developed at this point. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Understanding the National Certificate of Educational Achievement

Scope unclear; very little content; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Release Management

Abandoned almost 2 decades; very little content; unclear what its scope as a book is —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - release management is a potentially worthy topic, but this isn't useful even as a starting point. The landscape has changed quite a bit in the last 20 years. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 16:31, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Living in Bangkok

Minimal content; consists of single chapter that contains likely outdated information —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Limburgish

Abandoned; single chapter with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

In general, I think deletion not solve anything. While the contents is minimal, it's still better than nothing at all. Rather, an invitation should be made to expand on it. --Ooswesthoesbes (discuss • contribs) 06:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Ooswesthoesbes! While I understand your perspective, I unfortunately disagree. Wikibooks has a huge number of abandoned stubs like this one, which I think results in clutter and makes the entire project less useful as a result. Due to their nature and structure, books require a greater committed investment to make than, say, WP articles, and these little scraps are rarely developed here. This book has had plenty of opportunity for expansion since you started it over a decade ago, but nobody has actually made any effort to do so. Based on the evidence from the past decade, when weighing the likelihood of the book being properly developed going forward versus the active negative impact of its continued presence in this state, I favor deletion. Moreover, in the rare case that someone came along later and wanted to revive this book specifically, it could be undeleted. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Introduction to BASIC

Consists only of a few paragraphs and then a compilation of links —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate

Not actually a book in and of itself; rather, it is just a compilation of links to other books —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Could this be salvaged as a shelf? Pppery (discuss • contribs) 05:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Bug Free Programming

Unclear how exactly this constitutes an educational book; scope is unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't even remember this one. I think it's perfectly clear how this is educational and the scope couldn't be clearer, either, but I'm not going to finish it so go ahead and delete it. Főszerkesztő Úr (discuss • contribs) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Character List for Baxter&Sagart

Seems completely out of scope as an educational book; it's just a list of characters and outlinks —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Adding Character List for Karlgren's GSR and Character List for Schuessler's CGSR for the same reason —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

These three books do make a package and I agree they should be considered together. However, I strongly object to deleting them. They are really extremely useful resources. I use them every week and I know that many people who do work on Old Chinese phonology do so. There are lots of books out there that are lists of characters, these are called dictionaries. For example Axel Schuessler's ABC Etymological Dictionary of Old Chinese, or Pulleyblank's Lexicon of Reconstructed Pronunciation in Early Middle Chinese, Late Middle Chinese, and Early Mandarin. I see it as entirely a good thing for reference works of this kind to be available free online rather than only in expensive books in university research libraries. If this is in violation of a Wikibooks policy, I would at least like that policy to be drawn to my attention and to have some constructive comment offered about which Wikiproject such a resource should fall under. I will also say on a personal note that I have put literally hundreds of hours of work into these projects and it would grieve me a lot to see this work simply vanish, in particular when I know that colleagues around the world use these books. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Tibetologist, and thank you for the feedback! Official Wikibooks policy does not permit standalone dictionaries (see WB:DICT), though I understand the argument that it is a useful resource. I am wondering if there might be a home for it at Wiktionary or Wikiversity? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:14, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

The policy says to use Wiktionary, but these books cannot be moved there. In fact they link there, you can understand me as having made an index to wiktionary, if you like, where the ORDER of the characters is extremely important, information that would be lost in Wiktionary.

Wikiversity is not a project I participate in, and in any event my books here are older than it, so this option was not available for me at the relevant moment. If you are offering to move my books to Wikiversity, that is very kind of you and I will very graciously accept. Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 14:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have pinged over at Wikiversity Colloquium to ask about suitability and have looped you into the conversation over there. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I concur. I'm just an undergrad who tries to learn about Sino-Tibetan historical linguistics in his free time but I've found this wikibook to be incredibly useful, and I keep it open in one tab while I watch Professor Nathan Hill's lectures that he uploads to youtube in another tab, and another tab for taking notes. In fact if I remember correctly Professor Hill actually pointed his students to this wikibook.

I'm not familiar with Wikiversity but if all the content were as accessible there as it is here then I think that could work. ChromeBones (discuss • contribs) 02:43, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Per v:Wikiversity:Colloquium#Import_Resource_From_Wikibooks?, I recommend copying and pasting, including attribution via the edit summary and talk page, add appropriate categories and links, and then it could be deleted locally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Citroën XM

Abandoned >1 decade; very minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Happiness

Significant NPOV issues; not much content; abandoned for >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - this is essentially a self-help book (or at least, a clumsy attempt to write one). I'm inclined to say that this isn't a genre which is suitable for Wikibooks, as any self-help book is inherently an expression of personal opinion. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Islamic Studies Grade 1

Abandoned >1 decade with very little content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete - the table of contents makes it clear that this book was intended to house POV religious content (e.g. a chapter titled "Allah Is The One"). This is incompatible with WB:NPOV. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Suomen kieli käyttöön

Multiple pages in this book are written entirely in Finnish, which is out of the enWB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:09, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I was going to say whether we should ask any fiwikibooks sysop to maybe see if this could be transwikied to fiwb if it's within the scope there. But fi:Toiminnot:Käyttäjät/sysop indicates that there are only 3 sysops, and only Anr and Zache have made edits this year. If they deem it to be salvageable, then transwiki + delete, otherwise straight-up delete. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 11:24, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

It seems that the idea behind the book was for the pages to be bilingual, as it’s a language learning book. That’s why there are Finnish texts included intentionally even on the pages that are complete. There are similar books in dewikibooks and ruwikibooks as well. For the English version, I think the easiest way to proceed would be to clean up and adjust the page layout to fit enwikibooks better, and then translate the missing parts. By the way, if anyone wants to update the book’s name in English, it can be titled "Using the Finnish Language" or "Put Finnish Language into Use" for a direct translation. Zache (discuss • contribs) 11:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

files from Phoenix Wright

Used for decorative, not educational, purposes (WB:NFCC#8): File:AAIME Official Artwork.jpg, File:PWAAJFA episode1.png, File:PW JFA Official Artwork.jpg, File:Gyakuten Kenji 2 Official Artwork.png, File:AJ officialart.jpg, File:PW T&T Official Artwork.jpg, File:SMB2 dream staircase art.jpg.

Galleries (WB:NFCC#3): File:Moonflow 27.jpg, File:Macalania 18.jpg, File:Chauncey LM.jpg , File:King Boo LM.jpg, File:Boolossus LM.jpg. — Ирука¹³ 16:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

My thoughts below:

• File:AAIME Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:PWAAJFA episode1.png Delete purely decorative
• File:PW JFA Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:Gyakuten Kenji 2 Official Artwork.png Delete purely decorative
• File:AJ officialart.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:PW T&T Official Artwork.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:SMB2 dream staircase art.jpg Delete purely decorative
• File:Moonflow 27.jpg Keep low resolution and seems to be illustrating something
• File:Macalania 18.jpg Uncertain
• File:Chauncey LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something
• File:King Boo LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something
• File:Boolossus LM.jpg Keep seems to be actually illustrating something

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

A Summary of Theology and Thought in Messianic Judaism

Abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

NVQ Carpentry books

• NVQ Carpentry Level 2
• NVQ Carpentry Level 3

These pages are both largely unformatted lists of test questions and answers pertaining to UK carpentry training programs (cf. w:National Vocational Qualification). They are not written as books, and would take a major effort to transform into appropriate training materials for the associated coursework, rather than the "cheat sheets" they are now. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

AvernumScript

This book is a copydump of the Blades of Avernum documentation, which is not freely licensed. (The original documentation is available at [7], in the "Blades of Avernum Editor" download, as "BoA Editor Docs v12.pdf".) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's a copyvio, I think we can speedy delete it. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

WikiLang

• WikiLang
• about 70 subpages; see Special:PrefixIndex/WikiLang/ for a full list
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Gothic alphabet/𐌰
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Jeju
• Transwiki:WikiLang/Plattdüütsch Phonology

These pages were imported from m:WikiLang in 2021 for unclear reasons. It was originally a proposal for a new Wikimedia project which was rejected in 2017. The main page still contains the project proposal from meta, and the subpages contain a mishmash of encyclopedic content (e.g. WikiLang/Africa), word lists (e.g. WikiLang/Blackfoot/Animals), and miscellaneous project content (e.g. WikiLang/Media, WikiLang/News, etc). While the goals of this project may be laudable, this material doesn't add up to a book, and Wikibooks is not a launchpad for new Wikimedia projects. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

See m:Meta:Requests_for_deletion/Archives/2021#WikiLang_pages. This also already exists on Wikiversity as v:Portal:Wikilang. I guess we don't need both. Pppery (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Transwiki:Bypassing the Great Firewall of China

This content was imported from Wikipedia about 18 years ago (!), but never found a home in any existing book. Given its extreme age, the instructions on this page are no longer relevant or useful; the Tor Project has more up-to-date content on the topic on its own web site. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

If it's out of date, not useful, and not part of any other book, I can't see a good reason for keeping it. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Transwiki:Easy Hydroponics Feeding

This reads like a promotional article for a brand of plant food ("Maxsea"). Even if we had an appropriate book to merge this into, this wouldn't belong in it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per listed reasons. It does seem suspiciously like promotional material. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Anglese

A very incomplete lexicon (consisting of about a dozen words) for what appears to be a constructed language. Even if this were a real language, which it doesn't appear to be, it'd belong on Wiktionary, not here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning. Extremely small amount of content, not well-defined as book. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Teaching Social Studies in Virtual Space

Abandoned; no substantial content since the book was created in 2011. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

• Delete A lot of meta-content but no actual content. Pppery (discuss • contribs) 03:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposed New Characters: The Pipeline

A couple issues with this one:

• The book scope is unclear, and there has been no engagement with the query flag.
• I'm concerned that this is part of the long-term vandalism we've been having with unicode-related materials. See the following discussions for some context:
  • Please check sockpuppets editing Unicode/Versions (April 2023)
  • Unicode/Versions (July 2023)
  • IP editor adds unsourced content to JP writing system articles (August 2024)
  • CU request (August 2024)

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - this is a mixture of copy/pasted content from the Unicode web site and made-up nonsense. Unicode 17.0 is currently a draft, and is likely to be released in September 2025 (not 2024 as stated on this page). The remainder of the page appears to be conflating accepted Unicode proposals, pending proposals, and unofficial assignments (e.g. for constructed scripts); the result is an incomprehensible mess. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - definitely doesn't seem to fit. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 15:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

AT&T Mobility FAQ

• AT&T Mobility FAQ
• AT&T Mobility FAQ/MEdia Net Configuration
• AT&T Mobility FAQ/Data Connect Configuration

An extremely outdated FAQ on AT&T's cell phone services. Most of this document was written 20+ years ago as a Usenet FAQ; very little of it is accurate or useful anymore (particularly the two subpages, which have to do with obsolete configurations for "tethering" a computer to a cell phone). No objection if someone wants to update it, but there's clearly been no appetite to do that. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm wondering if it might make sense for us to develop some kind of policy on archiving books here. There are many like this one that have a good deal of content but are extremely out of date and just not useful as originally intended. ——Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: See the newly developed Wikibooks:Outdated books. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks - something like that seems like it could be an appropriate way to handle this book. A lot of the other outdated books I've tagged have been so incomplete that they wouldn't have been particularly useful even as historical references; this one might at least have some interest.

Any chance we can get a separate namespace (maybe "Archive:") set up for archived book content? That'd make it possible to do things like exclude them from on-site search by default. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I think this might be a more extended discussion, so I'll bump it over to the talk page of the draft policy! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Install osDate

Single-page book on how to install a piece of software which, as far as I can tell, is no longer available anywhere. This doesn't feel like a great candidate for archiving, as it's largely repeating instructions which were almost certainly included in the software installer - there's no unique insight worth saving here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 19:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Skript+

This book is about a scripting language made by the main contributor (who did all but one of the contributions in the whole book). There are, also, NO mentions of "Skript+", excluding random forums discussing a Minecraft mod. The "scripting language" is for ChatGPT. I, personally, do not believe I will ever need to determine the output of a ChatGPT conversation because the purpose of ChatGPT is not to provide a predetermined output. It, also, does not have many features, which makes it practically useless. And new information will not be added because the user is now inactive. It doesn't even mention how to import "Skript+". It even states that it is a concept. A concept cannot be a education resource. GrammarPoliceOffical (discuss • contribs) 03:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete for the following reasons:

• Book has been abandoned with very little content;
• Book does not have any real introductory matter or other content explaining it in sufficient detail;
• Cannot find evidence of this scripting language or its adoption anywhere else, and the only contributor explicitly says they invented it;
• As was mentioned, I can't understand how a scripting language is even supposed to work when fed into a large language model like GPT. That's not how scripting or LLMs are designed to work.

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Concur. This "scripting language" is entirely imaginary. It's running with the concept that a language model can follow simple instructions, and trying to formalize that behavior into a "language". But there is no such formal language; the language model is just trying to play along with whatever input the user throws at it. Trying to document it is futile. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Learn Polish with This Book

Is an empty book. A book for Polish already exists (Polish). GrammarPoliceOffical (discuss • contribs) 03:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasons —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Chess Opening Theory/1. e4/1...d6/2. Qg4

Obvious queen blunder which has never been played at master level, and would never be mentioned in a chess opening book. J Mo 101 (discuss • contribs) 18:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete . This is described in a Chessbase blog post as "the worst blunder in the opening that does not lead to immediate checkmate", and in a chess.stackexchange answer as a "nonsense opening". The intent of this book is to describe common practice, not to enumerate every possible move. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Cookbook talk:Grilled_Cheese_Sandwich

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

Resolved —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

---

Please note that I am only nominating the talk page for deletion.

This talk page is a copyright violation. It copies content from an unrecoverable talk page from enwiki, and the attribution provided ("Copied talk page from en:Talk:Grilled cheese sandwich") is insufficient, as it fails to account for the GFDL's requirement that "... you must ... Preserve the section Entitled "History", Preserve its Title, and add to it an item stating at least the title, year, new authors, and publisher of the Modified Version as given on the Title Page." The history provided is only of the associated cookbook page, not the talk page itself. JJP_Master (she/they) 05:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• The signatures of the copied comments provide needed attribution, right? Pppery (discuss • contribs) 06:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Pppery: I don't know if that's sufficient, since the page history ("section Entitled 'History'") itself is not included. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Volunteer Response Team has confirmed off-wiki that the signature is indeed sufficient attribution. Therefore,  Request withdrawn. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Co-Life

This appears to be documentation for an internal web application at the National Center for High-performance Computing in Taiwan which is no longer online. (It's unclear if it was ever available to the public in the first place, or if it was only available to staff.) Either way, the documentation is of no use to us or anyone. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 03:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning. There's very little content, and it just doesn't seem useful or worth preserving to me. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Mandarin edition of the OpenSSH wikibook is an abandoned fragment and not based on the actual book

The Chinese edition of the OpenSSH wikibook is only a tiny fragment of a single page which has remained abandoned since 2017. Furthermore, the text which it contains is not even based on the actual book. Please tidy things up by deleting the Chinese OpenSSH book page and removing all links to it, if any, which are found on the main book. Thanks.

If the page cannot be deleted, please at least remove the link to it from the English edition of the OpenSSH book. Thanks again.

— Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 09:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

@Larsnooden We cannot do the first one (you'll need to bring it up directly with the zh.wikibooks users), and the second one is also difficult, because the interwiki links are actually hosted on Wikidata and I am not sure if we can remove a link for this reason. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 12:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand. Have I marked the page correctly for deletion there? If so, will it eventually be processed by the zh.wikibooks commmunity? — Larsnooden (discuss • contribs) 13:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like a deletion discussion has been created; however, it also looks like there's very little activity on the discussion page, with some discussions having been open for several years. So I wouldn't hold my breath. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 01:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Rc

There are precisely zero links to this cross-namespace redirect that didn't work at the time of creation. I converted it into a soft redirect instead of RfDing thinking that that could break links, before realizing that there are none. JJP_Master (she/they) 04:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• Delete Pppery (discuss • contribs) 04:56, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Algebra/Chapter 10/Symmetric Polynomials

I personally believe that this, and all of the sections should be deleted for the fact that this goes WAY beyond the scope of what was intended for the Chapter (Algebra II level polynomials). GoreyCat (discuss • contribs) 15:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Split: Deletion here is not the best solution (see w:WP:ATD). Instead, this page and its subpages should be moved to another book, most likely Abstract Algebra. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep since there is a good amount of content. If Abstract Algebra is appropriate, it seems like a fine idea to move there. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Eh, yeah, I supposed moving it is better. I just don't think it's suitable for where it appears. GoreyCat (discuss • contribs) 01:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Change Issues in Curriculum and Instruction

This book is a school project with OR that should be moved to Wikiversity. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not certain this is a good fit for Wikiversity either. It's essentially a collection of student essays written in 2007 on various topics related to education. If this were an active project there'd be more of an argument for moving it, but in its current state I don't think it makes sense to keep. It's hopelessly mired in opinion and often badly outdated; I'm inclined to say the answer will be to Delete it. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/A

The following pages are also nominated for deletion: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/B https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/C https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/D https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/E https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/F https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/G https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/H https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/I https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/J https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/K https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/L

These are now all duplicate pages that were: (1) originally created by @Xeverything11 in Dec 2024

   by extracting portion of History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies;

(2) then "blanked" (all content removed) by myself in Dec 2024

   contemporaneous with discussions with @Kittycataclysmat and @Leaderboard in Reading_room/General (topic: Page Size);

(3) then reverted by @JJPMaster in Feb 2025 with a suggestion that the pages needed to be referred for Speedy Deletion here.

The individual alphabetical pages are now duplicates and orphans and should be deleted. The original pages have been updated over the last two months and the existence of the duplicate pages serves no purpose and is confusing

Introduction to Human Geography

Abandoned for multiple years, only one page has any meaningful content, and it's about two paragraphs —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Delete Seems abandoned and lacks content. --Xania ^talk 03:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

2009 UIL Spelling Study Manual

The 2009 UIL Spelling Competition was over 15 years ago; it's unlikely that this outdated word list would be of use to anyone - especially since it was never completed; the last word defined (in alphabetical order) is "casus belli", and the word list itself stops at "futurity race". I'm not sure the full list is even available anywhere, nor that the study manual would be any more useful even if it were finished. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete. Clearly abandoned, and lacking in meaningful content. I agree with the nominator that this would be unlikely to be useful even if it were able to be finished. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:31, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:51, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Puredyne

Development of Puredyne Linux was discontinued in 2012, and the software no longer appears to be available for download anywhere. (An archive of the web site is still up - with a bunch of embedded spam links - but the download links are all dead.) Is this a suitable candidate for archival (cf. Wikibooks:Outdated books), or should it just be deleted? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

I'd just archive stuff like this. Looks like a decent bit of work went into it, and you never know when someone might need to use Puredyne for some obscure project. I'd be willing to bet mirrors exist of it somewhere, or someone has it on a drive. If you want to find some stuff worth deleting, comb through Category:Allbooks categories. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Laptop Computer Models

This book aimed to become a catalog of "all known laptop computer models". Whether this sort of database is even in scope for Wikibooks is questionable. But it's beyond question that the book has failed to achieve its objective - out of the many thousands of models of laptops that have been manufactured, this book only has information on a few dozen, mostly from around 2010 (when it was written). Most of the subpages are incomplete, and there seems to be little interest in improving or updating the book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:09, 17 March 2025 (UTC)

• Intuitively or from heart, I would delete the material as per above: it is too underdeveloped and has been so for a long time. However, it is not clear that it matches policy. To address a possible policy problem, I started Wikibooks:Reading room/General#Deleting stale stubs. The policy states: "In general, keep stubs that can be improved on, but delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

  As a matter of policy, I'm fairly certain that a book of this nature would already be out of scope per WB:NOTWP. If an encyclopedia or dictionary is out of scope as insufficiently "book-like", a catalog like this is only more so. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:51, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  That seems right: "Wikibooks is not an in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic nor are pages encyclopedia-formatted articles. Books build knowledge from one page to the next, with interdependency between pages. Books in progress are sometimes organized in an encyclopedic manner until developed into proper books. For an encyclopedia, see our sister project Wikipedia." However, I think this is a bad policy as formulated, in part since it would lead e.g. to deletion of Windows Batch Scripting. That is to say, I do not think chapters/sections/parts of a book should be required to be integrated, one building on another. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:27, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:R from move

The template in question is not added to redirects that were created after moving a page. In fact, Category:Redirects from moves does not exist. Both the template and the documentation contain multiple non-existent templates. This template appears to be an exact copy of the template on Wikipedia. (except for the hatnote which was moved from the template to the documentation on Wikibooks, unlike Wikipedia; the hatnote was removed from the documentation because the template is not added to redirects that result from page moves) – TG-ARTICLE (talk) 17:20, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete - this looks like it was inadvertently pulled in during the 2024 import of {{Isotones}}; see logs for details. There's a handful of other unused templates in the Transwiki namespace which transclude this template, which should probably be deleted as well. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete Sigh. Pppery (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nom. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Wantedpages

Says the special page is disabled. It isn't anymore. Pppery (discuss • contribs) 04:55, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Ignore all rules

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

No consensus to delete. It is tagged as an essay. I have made an update to it (as anyone can) pointing out that it is fine to claim that a rule has to be ignored to "improve" something, but other editors may disagree. So ignore the rules at your own risk! MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 10:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

---

The title of this page, created in 2024 without discussion as far as I can see, is a dishonest/Orwellian exhortation. It should ideally be deleted. No honest person, especially administrator, can admonish other editors to ignore all rules. Being driven by good rules is a sign of well administered public wiki that as if anyone can edit. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 19:14, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Keep as the author of the page. "Ignore all rules" is one of the most fundamental ideals of the Wikimedia movement (see meta:Ignore all rules for information about it, as well as the interwiki links on WB:IAR). (Note: I did not become an administrator until after I created the page) JJP_Master (she/they) 03:52, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

It is not an ideal but rather an anti-ideal. The meta page states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining a project, ignore it." I am a semi-admin/curator in the English Wikiversity, capable of deleting pages; should I follow the quoted meta-rule, I could immediately start deleting bad pages in volume regardless of policies, guidelines and common practice: I would argue that the existing rules (policies, guidelines, etc.) prevent me from improving or maintaining the project. The same problem exists in Wikibooks: if I was a Wikibooks administrator, I could claim that the rule of using RFD to delete bad pages prevents me from (efficiently) improving or maintaining a project, then ignore the rule and start deleting bad pages in volume via speedy deletion. The reason why this does not happen is that administrators do in general in fact abide by rules (policies and guidelines), even those rules that prevent them from improving the project (improving by their assessment).

I therefore repeat my proposal to delete this dishonest page, fortunately not matching the actual practice. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:44, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Anarchist FAQ

The book is mostly copied from https://anarchistfaq.org/afaq, which is licensed only under the GFDL. This violates WB:COPY, which says that "you cannot import information which is available only under the GFDL". jlwoodwa (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

JJPMaster said in an edit summary that the copyright holder was "contacted with instructions to email VRT". jlwoodwa (discuss • contribs) 03:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Much of the content was copied before dual licensing was introduced at Wikibooks and is therefore not a violation of the policy that was in force at the time. This is therefore not a valid deletion reason for any content that pre-dates the introduction of dual licensing MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Delete - the fact that the content of this book is almost entirely copied from an outside source is itself a problem, regardless of the license of that work. The purpose of Wikibooks is to develop new freely licensed texts, not merely to create copies of existing texts. A 2009 request for deletion was closed as "keep on the condition it is developed and not hosted as a completed work". Over fifteen years later, this still hasn't happened, and there's no indication that it ever will. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Template:Qr-twwp

This isn't exactly a request to delete the template, but rather to merge it with {{Copypaste}}. The {{Qr-twwp}} template serves the same purpose as {{Copypaste}}, but without the seven-day period after which the page is deleted. This leads to confusion, as well as a perpetually full Category:Queried pages. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

Character Encodings

Was never fleshed out into a proper book and consists only of code tables —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:40, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Defence in Depth for Securing Computer Systems

Abandoned for over a decade; very little meaningful content with no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:45, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - what little content exists in this book is badly out of date. Computer security has changed a lot over the last ~20 years; the basic recommendations made in this book like "you should have a configuration management system" or "make sure your server cabinet is locked" simply don't cut it anymore. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

CASP

Abandoned for over a decade; no meaningful content; just lists of terms —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Delete - this is just a list of objectives for the exam, and the current objectives of the exam are completely different than those shown here. (Unsurprisingly so, given that this book was created in 2014, and that computer security hasn't stood still in the meantime.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Managing enterprises with advanced ICT

Abandoned for multiple years; little meaningful content; was never more than a list of outlinks to enWP —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:51, 2 May 2025 (UTC)

Adobe GoLive Guide

Abandoned, fragmentary manual for a piece of web design software which was discontinued in 2008. Further development seems unlikely; no substantial edits have been made in the last 15+ years. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Transwiki:Takeminakata

Copied Wikipedia article, per WP:NOTWP. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Immanuelle requested that this be imported in December 2024 (Wikibooks:Requests for import/Archives/2024/December#Multiple pages for User:Immanuelle. @Immanuelle: Do you have any plans for this page? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:15, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

@Omphalographer Yes I do have plans for it. I was meaning to import it to here User:Immanuelle/sandbox/Suwa_Faith and work on it. But I thought the request was never responded to. It is part of a project for making a book talking about types of Shinto shrines. Although I cannot promise I will complete it soon. Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and if that's the case, you can move this and I'll withdraw this request, is that correct? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:03, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Can we merge in the history here? Immanuelle (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Ainu

Abandoned multiple years; no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Australia's International Airline Freight

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

Someone's personal project, could have been speedied as not a web host. Deleted. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 10:29, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

---

Seems out of scope (not book-like) and potentially encyclopedic; minimal content and potential for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Pages in Baptist Theology

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

All pages were batch-deleted per lack of objections. Closed accordingly. Codename Noreste (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

---

• Baptist Theology/Character of God
• Baptist Theology/The Church
• Baptist Theology/The Apostles Creed
• Baptist Theology/Salvation
• Baptist Theology/Origin of Sin
• Baptist Theology/Men and Women in God's Creation
• Baptist Theology/Last Things
• Baptist Theology/Jesus Christ (the Son of God)
• Baptist Theology/Its supernatural origin
• Baptist Theology/Holy Spirit
• Baptist Theology/God the Father
• Baptist Theology/Existence of God

Entire book is orphaned and was never properly structured; suffers from key and widespread NPOV issues; abandoned and undeveloped —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Per lack of objections, this is now done. Codename Noreste (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Bible Stories/The Birth of Jesus

Orphaned page and out of scope (single story) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:28, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Chemical Dynamics/Electrostatics

Abandoned >1 decade; orphaned; minimal meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Subpages in Christian Hymns

All pages are orphaned; per WB:SOURCE this is a repository and is out of scope —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Economic Sophisms

Per WB:SOURCE. The previous RFD was closed as no consensus though there was reasonable evidence to delete. Previous discussions had suggested that the book could be improved, but it has now been several years without progress or moves to annotate the book for compliance with WB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Essentials of Number Theory

Abandoned with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:34, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Delete - this is a straight-up copyvio of "Essentials of Number Theory" by Daniel A. Klain, which is under a non-commercial/no-derivatives license. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:29, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Form 1 .4 Term Mathematics 1 2012-2013

Abandoned >1 decade; minimal content and no sign of progress. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:02, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - introduction indicates that this was an attempt to create a class web page, not a book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:16, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Geometry Dash: History of Exterme Demons/Element 111 Rg

Orphaned, abandoned, educational scope unclear, minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - if I'm reading this correctly, it's narrating the history of a specific piece of user-generated content for a video game. Even if it weren't an orphaned page, this seems like an excessively esoteric topic which is unlikely to be of educational use. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Grammar and Syntax/Die vs. end

Orphaned; educational book-like scope unclear; minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Homotopy Type Theory using the Agda HoTT library

Abandoned with minimal content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:19, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Imperialism: a black and white issue?

Seems to be an orphaned essay, which is not within the WB scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - looks like an inadvertent duplicate of Issues in Interdisciplinarity 2018-19/Imperialism: a black and white issue?. That book may need to be reviewed as well; it appears to essentially be a collection of student opinion essays. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:49, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The book itself is fine - it's a student-created resource. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

REALbasic

Abandoned with no substantial content since 2009. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

The language is now Xojo. Unsure if an update is feasible or useful. 2603:8081:2700:330:F97F:D3B8:CF1D:E78F (discuss) 01:49, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

There's effectively nothing there to update. The closest this book comes to actual content is REALbasic/Programming/Databases, which is still "waiting for someone to write the rest of this". Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:29, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

XBasic

Abandoned with no substantial content since 2004. Most of the current page appears to be an attempt to create a community home page (e.g. a list of project ideas and a link to a defunct Yahoo chat), not a book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

XBLite

Abandoned with almost no content since 2006. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:00, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Operations and Production Systems with Multiple Objectives

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

Despite very minimal participation, there is consensus to delete the book. Codename Noreste (talk) 05:17, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

---

Abandoned >1 decade and never fleshed out with content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:06, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete - this is effectively an advertisement for a commercial textbook (linked on the words "this book"), not an attempt to create a book on Wikibooks. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Ontology of Emerging Complexity

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

The page was moved to Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity, but there is no consensus to delete the book at this time. Codename Noreste (talk) 06:38, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

---

There are a couple of problems with this newly created book:

1. It is extremely unclear to me what the intended topic of this book is, beyond "some sort of highly abstract philosophy". The book does an exceptionally poor job of explaining itself. To the extent that I can understand the topic, it appears to be an expression of a philosophical proposal.
2. This proposal appears to be extremely recent, if not brand-new. The web site associated with this topic - by the same author as this page - was registered only a few weeks ago, and I cannot find any indication that the topic has been discussed substantially by anyone else. This strikes me as essentially original research.
3. Last but not least, the text of the book appears to have been almost entirely generated by a large language model, in violation of the draft policy on the use of AI. One particularly noticeable sign is the text's near-continuous use of negative parallelisms ("it's not XYZ — it's ABC"), which are characteristic of certain language models.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:53, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

A few relevant points from my perspective:

• The editor in question seems to have created a duplicate book at Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity—this should certainly be deleted as a duplicate, and I've flagged it for speedy deletion.
• I'm a little concerned that the editor in question does not understand the scope of Wikibooks and is potentially even making things up (whether this is due to LLM usage, I can't say). At Special:Diff/4527490, they appeared to justify the book by claiming that WB:WIW says the following: “Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks that may contain original work, as long as it serves an educational purpose.” (Source: Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?). This is a fabrication, and that sentence does not exist on the indicated policy page.
• WB:WIW actually indicates that this work is not within the WB scope. The editor says This book is part of a long-term philosophical investigation, which indicates that this is original primary research. WB:SOURCE says that Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research. Examples of things not allowed on Wikibooks include proposing new theories and solutions, presenting original ideas, defining new terms, and coining new words. In short, primary research should be published elsewhere, such as a peer-reviewed journal, or our sister project Wikiversity. WB:SOAP also says that Wikibooks is not a vehicle to make personal opinions become part of human knowledge.

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:37, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and deleted the duplicate book. Codename Noreste (talk) 16:27, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

It seems like this work would be more appropriate at Wikiversity based on the statement at WV:IS/R saying Wikiversity is the place for original research, including primary or secondary research. This includes interpreting primary sources, forming ideas, or taking observations. Wikiversity:Research also outlines details there. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

As a legitimate user of this platform, I was accused of several irregularities while attempting to create a philosophical book grounded in ontological inquiry. These accusations were issued hastily, while the book was still less than 3% written, and were based on highly subjective and vague judgments — as if those evaluating it were, by default, more qualified than I am in a field I have worked in for many years.

Therefore, to definitively clarify this situation, I present here a detailed defence, justifying both the validity of the project and the inconsistency of the criteria invoked to justify its removal.

----

Total Number of Allegations Identified: 8

1. Subject considered too abstract and poorly explained
2. Original philosophical proposal (suspicion of unvalidated originality)
3. Alleged AI-generated content (LLM)
4. Creation of a duplicate book
5. False attribution of a normative citation (non-existent in WB:WIW)
6. Violation of WB:WIW policy (Wikibooks' scope)
7. Violation of WB:SOURCE policy (original research)
8. Violation of WB:SOAP policy (publishing personal opinion as knowledge)

----

Response to Point 1 — On the Alleged Abstraction and Lack of Clarity

Your first objection concerns the alleged excessive abstraction and lack of clarity in the philosophical proposal. I must, with due respect, raise three fundamental questions:

1. Are you a philosopher, or do you possess academic training in the field of philosophy? The judgment you offered — that the work is “some sort of highly abstract philosophy” and “does an exceptionally poor job of explaining itself” — presupposes both conceptual tools and disciplinary literacy. Without them, such an evaluation becomes not only superficial but epistemically unfounded.
2. How can a judgment of coherence or clarity be made on a draft that contained less than 3% of the full material? The book was clearly identified as a work in progress, part of a complex ontological investigation with a defined structure yet to be developed. To draw conclusions at that stage is, at best, premature; at worst, intellectually irresponsible.
3. Since when is abstraction in itself a reason for invalidation in philosophical writing? Abstraction is not a flaw; it is a method. From Hegel to Heidegger, from Kant to Derrida, philosophy has never been built on immediate transparency. The measure of philosophical work is not instant accessibility, but internal coherence, rigour, and the capacity to reorganize thought.

What you dismissed was not an incoherent text — it was a complex beginning. And it was removed not because of any violation of Wikibooks policy, but based on a subjective discomfort with philosophical density. That is not a valid criterion for deletion.

Let us be clear: philosophical work requires time, development, and tolerance for complexity. To silence it at its inception, especially without the conceptual tools to evaluate it, is not editorial moderation — it is symbolic censorship.

----

Response to Point 2 — On the Allegation of “Original Research”

Your second point suggests that the project constitutes "original research" because the ideas presented are recent, perhaps even new. This reveals a misunderstanding of the very nature of philosophical writing and its distinction from empirical or experimental research.

1. In philosophy, every act of writing is, by definition, an act of original thought. Unlike the sciences, where originality is defined by data or procedural novelty, philosophical work is based on the reorganization, articulation, and critical engagement with concepts. To disqualify a philosophical project for being “new” is to misrecognize the very essence of what philosophy is: not the repetition of canonical doctrines, but their interrogation and reinvention.
2. To write philosophy is not to produce “research” in the scientific sense, but to traverse inherited ideas and reorganize them symbolically. Every philosophical work — from Plato to Nietzsche, from Heidegger to Deleuze — constitutes a singular gesture. If philosophy were measured only by precedent, it would be reduced to historiography, not thought.
3. The Ontology of Emerging Complexity is not a scientific hypothesis to be “verified” by external adoption; it is a philosophical construction — a conceptual gesture grounded in engagement with the tradition and oriented by ethical and ontological commitments. Its novelty is not a flaw, but a necessity.

Finally, the reference to the date of domain registration as a proxy for philosophical legitimacy is not only irrelevant but profoundly misguided. Ideas do not become meaningful by chronology or external validation, but by their conceptual rigor, internal coherence, and transformative potential.

To accuse a philosophical book of being “too recent” is to confuse conformity with validity — a confusion that philosophy exists precisely to challenge.

----

Response to Point 3 — On the Accusation of AI-Generated Content

The claim that this work was generated by a large language model based on the use of "negative parallelisms" is both inaccurate and conceptually flawed. Let us clarify the issue on three levels:

1. Stylistic Repetition Is Not a Symptom of Automation, but of Philosophical Precision Philosophical texts — especially those engaged in ontological critique — often rely on repeated logical structures to displace inherited assumptions. The negative constructions in this text (e.g., “It is not X — it is Y”) are not mechanical formulas, but conceptual interventions. They mark a rejection of ontological residues (dualisms, transcendences, teleologies) and a proposal of reorganized categories. This form is consistent with the philosophical tradition, from Nietzsche's aphorisms to Deleuze’s differentiations and Simondon’s refutations.
2. The Structure Reveals Internal Modulation, Not Formulaic Generation The recurrence of certain phrases (e.g., "There is no...", "Not because... but because...") functions here as material reiteration — deliberately folding language to make visible the ontological argument of the book: that matter organizes itself through recursive modulation. The linguistic form is thus coherent with the conceptual core. To confuse this structural choice with evidence of automated generation reveals a superficial reading and a lack of philosophical literacy.
3. No Automated System Produces This Level of Coherent Ontological Architecture Even advanced models cannot produce a 10,000-word continuous exposition with rigorous internal consistency, explicit dialogue with multiple philosophical traditions (Plato, Spinoza, Simondon, Deleuze, Glissant), and a distinctive ontological proposal that is sustained across conceptual, historical, and epistemological dimensions. This work demonstrates not only mastery of content, but also philosophical style and symbolic invention — which no known model can generate independently.

In short: the repetitions are conceptual strategies, not algorithmic residues. The symbolic rhythm is intentional, operatory, and deeply aligned with the book’s central philosophical gesture. To misread such modulation as “signs of AI” is to confuse machine simulation with material inscription — precisely the confusion this ontology dismantles.

----

Response to Point 4 — On the Alleged Duplication of the Book

The claim that a "duplicate book" was created is factually incorrect. What occurred was not the creation of two independent books with overlapping content, but a sequence of attempts to register the same project — after the initial version was prematurely deleted. The two entries that may appear similar were not concurrent, nor were they intended to coexist as separate books.

There is no duplication of content or fragmentation of purpose. Both attempts reflected the same singular book, under the same title, with the same conceptual orientation. If any confusion arose, it was due to the administrative timing of deletions and not due to editorial misuse of the platform.

To describe this as a “duplicate” is misleading. It was, rather, the reinstatement of a legitimate effort, removed before it could reach even minimal development (less than 3% of its planned content had been uploaded at the time). The second entry was an attempt to restore the integrity of the work — not to fragment it.

Thus, this accusation should be withdrawn. It does not reflect the reality of the editorial process and diverts attention from the content and philosophical depth of the work in question.

----

Response to Point 5 — On the Citation Misattribution

It is asserted that the phrase “Wikibooks is a collection of open-content textbooks that may contain original work, as long as it serves an educational purpose” was fabricated by the editor in question. This is a serious accusation and must be addressed with clarity.

Let us be precise: the intention of the statement was not to quote a policy word-for-word, but to summarize its spirit, based on the general principles guiding open educational content. If the phrase does not appear verbatim in WB:WIW, that does not constitute “fabrication.” It is a paraphrase, an interpretative summary — which is a legitimate and common form of reasoning, especially in philosophical and educational writing.

More importantly, the accusation of “making things up” implies deliberate deception, which is both unjust and damaging. I acted in good faith, as an experienced educator and philosopher, navigating a complex and often ambiguous editorial space. Accusing me of fabrication without proportion or due process undermines the collaborative ethos of the Wikibooks project.

This point should therefore be reconsidered — not only in fairness to the editor, but in defense of the nuanced and interpretative practices that are essential to all intellectual work. If paraphrasing educational guidelines becomes grounds for deletion, we risk reducing the project to bureaucratic literalism, where flexibility, creativity, and good faith are penalized.

----

Response to Points 6, 7 and 8 — On the Scope of Wikibooks and the Nature of Philosophical Work

It is claimed that the work does not fall within the scope of Wikibooks, as defined by WB:WIW and related policies. Let us analyze this assertion with care and conceptual precision.

First, WB:WIW defines Wikibooks as a platform for open-content textbooks, and while it discourages original primary research, it does not exclude the presentation of original frameworks or interpretations when embedded in pedagogical structure. The present book — Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity — is clearly introduced as a theoretical, ethical, and epistemological foundation of a new philosophical current. It explicitly states that it is not a full traversal of the ontology, but a structured and educational introduction. It therefore adheres to the pedagogical and expository purpose outlined by the platform.

Second, the claim that “proposing new theories and defining new terms” is outside the scope of Wikibooks needs to be contextualized. In the domain of philosophy, to write is always to propose a new configuration of thought. Even textbooks on established schools of thought (e.g., phenomenology, structuralism, deconstruction) were, at their origins, radical reinterpretations. A philosophical textbook is not a compilation of settled facts; it is a structured traversal of conceptual organization. The current work is no exception.

Third, invoking WB:SOURCE and WB:SOAP to suggest that this book is merely a “vehicle for personal opinions” mischaracterizes the project. The work is neither a diary nor a manifesto. It is systematically argued, deeply referenced, and anchored in a long philosophical tradition. The structure is educational, the tone is scholarly, and the citations are real and verifiable. To accuse it of violating WB:SOURCE without engaging with the actual content is not an evaluation — it is a presumption.

Finally, it is important to reaffirm that original thought is not identical to primary research. In the sciences, “original research” implies experimental methods, data collection, and testing hypotheses. In philosophy, by contrast, the originality of a thought is intrinsic to its mode of articulation, not to empirical procedures. Philosophical education cannot be severed from conceptual invention.

----

Conclusion

For all these reasons, I firmly maintain that my book was removed not on the basis of actual violations of Wikibooks policy, but due to misinterpretations, premature judgments, and philosophical unfamiliarity. I respectfully request that this decision be reconsidered in light of the clarifications above.

Philosophy is not built on consensus or simplicity, but on the courage to think differently. This book was — and remains — an effort to do just that. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 14:58, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Please use your own words to engage in discussions. It is manifestly obvious that this reply was LLM-generated just as much as the book was, and as such I will not engage with it in detail beyond to note that:

• The definition of original research, in the context of Wikibooks, is the presentation of any facts, theories, ideas, data, opinions, or claims that have not yet been subject to peer review by experts and/or have not yet been included elsewhere by a reliable publication. (This is conceptually very similar to the definition used by Wikipedia.) Books on Wikibooks are expected to summarize existing concepts and schools of thought on a topic, not to present their own original thoughts. There is no special dispensation for works of philosophy - any freshman text on philosophy can manage to summarize the works of past philosophers without inventing its own along the way, and we expect the same of books here. Indeed, philosophy is ultimately no different in this regard from other academic disciplines - the measure of an idea's significance is in how other people react to it and engage with it. It doesn't matter how perfect and logical a concept is if no one cares about it (and Wikibooks is not the place to try to change that).
• Your "interpretative summary" of WB:WIW was a lie, plain and simple. No part of that policy states or implies in any way whatsoever that original research is permitted; the section WB:WIW#Wikibooks is not a mirror or a text repository (aka WB:SOURCE) states the polar opposite. Moreover, if you had actually intended to "paraphrase" the policy rather than quoting, you would not have begun by repeating its opening words. Don't treat us like we're stupid.
• It is literally true that you created a duplicate book on Wikibooks; the first book you created was never deleted, and recreating it under another title would have been inappropriate even if that had been the case. Claiming that it was actually "a sequence of attempts to register the same project" or "an attempt to restore the integrity of the work" is pure sophistry (in the colloquial sense). All you needed to do here was to apologize and move on; arguing that you didn't actually do it is a waste of all of our time.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:21, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification.

I fully acknowledge that creating two entries for the same book was not regular procedure, and for that I offer a sincere public apology. It was not my intention to bypass any rules. What happened was the result of unfamiliarity with the platform and a genuine misunderstanding.

At the time, I was surprised to see such early and decisive negative assessments of the book — made when only a very small portion of the material had been published. Those early judgments appeared to be based more on subjective dislike than on clearly stated criteria. Coming into this process in good faith, and believing the project was compatible with the platform’s educational goals, I was confused by what seemed to be an abrupt and premature reaction.

That confusion led me to believe the first version had already been deleted, and so I began a new one — under the same title and with the same purpose. In retrospect, I recognize this was not the correct course of action. One version of the book should indeed be deleted. But I would also like to affirm that this error, while procedural, does not invalidate the merit of the project itself.

Once again, I apologize for the duplication. I accept that one entry must be removed. However, I remain convinced that this alone should not be taken as grounds to reject the project in both its forms. The work remains pedagogical in intent, original in structure, and fully open to improvements and adaptation according to the platform’s guidelines. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 12:02, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I would like to begin by clarifying a fundamental point: the comment presented reflects the individual opinion of a user, even if holding administrator status, and does not represent the official position of the Wikibooks community or the Wikimedia Foundation. As is well known, Wikimedia is a collaborative and decentralized project. No single user may speak on behalf of the project as a whole, nor present their judgment as if it were a final rule. It is legitimate to raise questions and propose discussions, but this should be done in a spirit of openness, argumentation, and mutual respect — not through a tone of final authority or summary dismissal.

1. Regarding the supposed prohibition of original ideas

The definition of "original research" cited here applies, according to official Wikimedia documentation, to content that has not undergone peer review nor been published by reliable sources. However, this guideline is primarily intended for encyclopedic entries, not pedagogical philosophical books.

The present work is not a scientific article nor academic research, but rather a rigorous educational project — clearly structured, written in accessible language, with a glossary of concepts and progressive articulation of ideas.

Philosophy, unlike empirical sciences, does not rely solely on prior publication to be considered valid, as long as it maintains internal coherence, clarity, and responsible reasoning — as this work does.

2. On pedagogical function and philosophical model

This book does not present “discoveries” or “private theories.” It follows a classical philosophical form: it proposes a coherent and critical reading of reality, sustained by a consistent technical vocabulary and a structured line of reasoning.

In philosophy, ideas can be new — but the method is not new. What is “new” here is the specific reorganization of problems and the particular articulation of concepts within a recognized rational and philosophical framework.

That does not violate the tradition of philosophy — it belongs to it.

Without such legitimate formulation, philosophy would be reduced to the mere history of doctrines — which is neither its essence nor the purpose of this book.

3. On the claim that value depends on public interest

To claim that the worth of a proposal depends solely on its social reception is to adopt a sociological criterion of truth, which does not apply to philosophy.

The value of a philosophical idea lies not in how many people endorse it, but in its capacity to reorganize problems, generate intelligibility, and open new symbolic pathways to reality.

Many philosophical projects were ignored in their time and later recognized as essential. A project with conceptual integrity and pedagogical structure should not be judged by its momentary popularity, but by its intellectual consistency and educational potential.

4. On compatibility with Wikibooks goals

This project does not attempt to change the rules — it seeks to apply Wikibooks principles coherently, with respect to the specificity of philosophy.

This book:

• follows a clear and progressive educational model;
• uses accessible language and explanatory vocabulary;
• organizes concepts in a responsible and structured way;
• presents a legitimate philosophical position, not an arbitrary one.

Nothing in this work violates the platform's guidelines. What it does is work within the educational format to present a meaningful philosophical approach — as has always been done in the history of the discipline.

----

If there are formal or structural improvements to be made, I am fully open to suggestions. But to reject this project based on a narrow and biased view of philosophy would only weaken the platform and discourage thoughtful contributions from authors working with seriousness and a genuine desire to share knowledge in an accessible and rigorous way. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 12:20, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Clarification: What Does "Research" Mean in Philosophy?

It is important to clarify a recurring misunderstanding often seen when evaluating philosophical projects on platforms like Wikibooks: the confusion between scientific research and philosophical research.

In empirical science, to research means to produce new data, validate hypotheses through experimentation, and discover facts that can be confirmed by observation or measurement. Originality, in that context, lies in factual novelty and empirical demonstration.

In philosophy, the meaning of research is quite different — almost the reverse. Philosophical investigation means to return to ideas, interrogate concepts, reorganize arguments, and re-read enduring problems that have traversed the history of thought.

Philosophical originality does not lie in discovering new facts, but in the symbolic reorganization of existing ideas, exposing new internal connections, articulating tensions, and opening conceptual paths that were previously unseen.

When we speak of "philosophical research," we are often referring to what other fields might call bibliographical research — but in philosophy, this is the very substance of the work. It is not secondary: it is the core.

The book in question does not claim to present new facts or experimental results. What it offers is a particular way of thinking through longstanding problems — such as time, matter, consciousness, language, and political form.

It does so in critical dialogue with established philosophical currents, reinterpreting them through a coherent internal framework.

This is not a book about an author. It is not a book about a doctrine. It is a book of philosophy.

And that is precisely what philosophy has always been: the art of reorganizing thought — with rigor, with attentiveness, and with risk.

It is understandable that, when someone is confronted with a worldview that does not match their own, it may cause discomfort or even resistance. That is part of the philosophical encounter. But such discomfort should not give way to hasty rejection or premature judgment, especially in a platform like Wikibooks — where knowledge should be treated with seriousness, openness, and respect for divergent perspectives.

This project does not seek "likes," nor popular validation. It is not enchanted by trends or by what is currently fashionable. It is structured as a philosophical textbook, with a clear technical vocabulary, strong pedagogical organization, and an explicit commitment to rational discourse.

That is why it must be evaluated as such — not based on personal taste, but on conceptual integrity, argumentative coherence, and its real educational value. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

@DavidCota64 Is there any reason you would object to moving this work over to Wikiversity? I inquired there, and Koavf 1) noted that it would probably be suitable there and 2) kindly offered to import it for you. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

As an aside, I'm happy to coordinate any material between Wikibooks and Wikiversity. For those not familiar with Wikiversity, it actually spun off from Wikibooks about 20 years ago and hosts all manner of learning resources generally, so that can include some first-hand research and broader course materials than just a textbook or guide or manual. Additionally, in case it comes up, for some reason, we have a slight distinction between two classes of admins called "curators" and "custodians" who have overlapping user rights. I have the more advanced ones, which are equivalent to an admin here and those include importing. Many other users could do the same task, so it doesn't need to be personality based, but I'm making the gesture personally. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Dear Justin,

Thank you sincerely for your generous offer and for taking the time to explain the distinctions between Wikibooks and Wikiversity. We take your proposal as a clear sign of appreciation for the philosophical and pedagogical value of the work being developed, which is deeply encouraging.

In fact, a parallel project is already being initiated on Wikiversity, focused on the same theme — the Ontology of Emerging Complexity. That space will serve as a platform for more open academic dialogue and peer-based discussion.

However, we believe that Wikibooks still plays an essential role at this stage, particularly as a space for structured pedagogical clarification of the foundational principles of the current. The format here allows for a more systematic and accessible presentation, which is important for the kind of educational trajectory we are aiming to establish.

That said, we are grateful for your willingness to assist and remain open to future coordination between both platforms. Should a transition or complementary transfer become necessary, we will not hesitate to reach out and gladly count on your support.

With appreciation,

— David DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 11:34, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Kittycataclysm - Thank you for your message and your openness.

I would like to clarify that I am indeed also developing a related project on Wikiversity. However, the two works serve different purposes and are structured accordingly.

The current project on Wikibooks is conceived as a pedagogical introduction to the Ontology of Emerging Complexity — aimed at providing a clear, structured, and accessible foundation for readers unfamiliar with the theory. Its aim is to organize and present core concepts in a didactic way.

The Wikiversity project, in contrast, will focus on direct peer discussion and philosophical debate, allowing for more fluid, research-oriented interactions.

For this reason, I believe the Wikibooks platform remains the appropriate place for this introductory and instructional version of the work. The two projects are complementary but not interchangeable.

I remain available for further clarification or adjustments that may help strengthen the suitability and transparency of this initiative. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 11:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

• Dear Kittycataclysm,

  I address your latest statement with due respect but also with the clarity required by the seriousness of this process. You mention that you remain “not personally convinced” by the arguments in favor of keeping the book Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity on Wikibooks. However, your position seems to rely primarily on personal impressions rather than consistent editorial principles.

  If we allow subjective perception alone to determine whether a book belongs on this platform, we risk undermining the very spirit of collaborative knowledge. Subjective criteria, when unchecked, cut both ways. For example: I have conducted a full review of your own book Culinary Arts/Introduction, and based on the same criteria you’ve applied to my work, I would be fully justified in proposing its deletion:

  • It contains no academic references whatsoever.
  • It is written in a non-academic and informal tone.
  • It presents original content based on personal views and experience, without any cited educational framework.
  • It lacks clear educational outcomes and does not follow any structured pedagogical format.

  According to the very logic you apply to my book, yours would be categorized as non-educational, subjective, and possibly self-promotional. But I would not take such action, because I believe Wikibooks must accommodate a broad plurality of educational formats and forms of knowledge, especially when they are developed in good faith and with intellectual responsibility.

  My book is:

  • Structured with rigorous philosophical criteria.
  • Supported by verifiable references to authors such as Derrida, Deleuze, Simondon, and Spinoza.
  • Based on a long-term philosophical project accessible at https://travessia.online.
  • Explicitly framed as a textbook of theoretical foundations, not as original research in the scientific sense.

  Therefore, your persistent attempt to disqualify the book, despite the arguments already presented, appears less grounded in policy and more based on personal reluctance.

  I kindly request that you reconsider your stance, not based on personal conviction, but on a consistent application of Wikibooks’ scope guidelines. Otherwise, we must all be prepared to accept that if a subjective threshold is the rule, any book — including yours — may be subject to removal under equally arbitrary terms.

  For all the above reasons, I reaffirm: the book should remain.

  Sincerely,

  David Cota DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 17:00, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

  DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 17:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

@DavidCota64 I don't quite know how to put this, but I am once again very concerned by your apparent confusion here—you are again saying things that are demonstrably incorrect and don't make sense in the discussion. For example, you state "I have conducted a full review of your own book Culinary Arts/Introduction", but that doesn't make sense, since I did not create and have not added to Culinary Arts/Introduction or even Culinary Arts in general. You also ignored the instruction to not discuss things in the section below, among other issues. I do not think you are participating in this discussion in good understanding, and I do not think the discussion can be productive as a result. Additionally, I do not think extensive back-and-forth in the discussion will be constructive. As such, I will no longer be participating in it beyond this reply. I will leave things to another administrator (e.g. @Codename Noreste) to address. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:59, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@DavidCota64: Whatever you are currently working on, we should probably move this over to the English Wikiversity so that an admin can close this soon. Codename Noreste (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm @Codename Noreste

I must clarify that I do not and will not accept any attempt to impose a decision based on personal taste, subjective discomfort, or lack of technical knowledge regarding philosophical content. It is inappropriate — and epistemologically dangerous — for contributors to assess the validity of a philosophical book using criteria that stem from misunderstanding or inability to engage with its conceptual depth.

This is not a personal website. This is not a university research paper. This is a structured, pedagogically oriented **book** — as defined by Wikibooks' own scope: open-access instructional materials, progressively developed for a community of readers.

I will not move the project to Wikiversity, as this is clearly a book, not a research platform. The demand for such a move is not based on any formal violation, but on a persistent misreading of what philosophy is and how it is practiced.

I consider this discussion closed from my side. I will continue to work on the book with the same rigour, academic integrity, and commitment to public knowledge.

However, if further attempts are made to interfere with the legitimate development of this work, I will escalate the matter to a higher review instance, asking for an **objective assessment** based on Wikibooks' policies — not on subjective discomfort or arbitrary interpretations.

Sincerely,

• • David Cota**

DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Addendum to my previous statement:

I would like to add a crucial point to this discussion, as what is at stake here is not merely the approval of a particular book, but the very criteria by which philosophical works are evaluated on the Wikibooks platform.

An examination of the profiles of the two administrators involved in this process reveals that their contribution history is focused almost exclusively on technical manuals and cookbooks — areas that are entirely legitimate and valuable within the Wikibooks project, but profoundly different in terms of language, conceptual depth, and structure when compared to a philosophical work of high theoretical density such as Foundations of the Ontology of Emerging Complexity.

Philosophy cannot be assessed using the same criteria applied to technical compilations or instructional content. Its vocabulary is necessarily complex, its argumentative structure is non-linear, and its value lies not in simplified exposition but in the density of conceptual elaboration. Demanding that a philosophy book be “immediately clear” or “universally accessible” is a category mistake that undermines the very diversity of epistemic forms Wikibooks should be committed to preserving.

It is deeply concerning that the rejection of a philosophical work is being suggested based on subjective judgments from administrators who have shown no expertise or demonstrable understanding of philosophy. This represents a form of epistemological exclusion — not through direct censorship, but through the imposition of evaluative frameworks that render more rigorous or complex thought inadmissible by default.

I cannot accept that the editorial management of a platform such as Wikibooks relies on assessments that ignore the distinctive nature of philosophical writing as a rigorous, systematic, and historically situated mode of inquiry. The suggestion that this book belongs on Wikiversity rather than Wikibooks is therefore mistaken: this is not a research project, but a philosophical book structured for publication, aiming to present a systematic ontological proposal.

For these reasons, I will continue the development of this book in full accordance with community rules and formatting standards. Should further obstructions arise, I will not hesitate to escalate the matter to higher levels within the Wikimedia Foundation to ensure a fair, informed, and epistemologically appropriate review.

Finally, as previously announced, I will be transferring the book to a new title. From my perspective, this matter is now closed.

Thank you for your attention. DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 12:44, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Simple vote

It's getting somewhat long and dense in the above discussion thread, so I'm creating a subsection here for people to place a simple vote of Keep or Delete . If you have additional detailed comments, please insert them in the discussion above and not in this subsection. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Delete after moving over to Wikiversity—not personally convinced by above arguments that it is more suitable here than at WV. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

 :Keep DavidCota64 (discuss • contribs) 17:06, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Multiple pages by Morbuser

This user has definitively created pages with completely fabricated information (Geometry/Contributors and Geometry/Authors, since deleted). To me, this makes all the pages they have created highly suspect in terms of accuracy. Because of this and because it will be challenging and time-consuming to validate their creations with current activity on this project, my instinct is to conservatively delete them. However, I do not feel comfortable making this executive decision myself and am bringing it for community discussion. Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:06, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The contributions in question are largely at Comprehensive Mathematics, but more can be found at Morbuser. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'd opt to delete. All of the content created by this user has extensive formatting problems - it looks like it was written in a mixture of Markdown and LaTeX, not MediaWiki syntax, and the user hasn't made any attempt to correct that. (This is a common sign of unsupervised LLM use.) Given this obvious lack of care, I have very little faith that the content created is correct or meaningful. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Ghouls of the Miskatonic

I don't think that a plot summary of a book is in-scope here. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete - at least, not a summary of this book. A summary and/or study guide to a notable work of literature might be in scope, but this is certainly not one. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I am the creator of the pages of this book. If I understand correctly, it has to be a summary of a notable work of literature? So what exactly is defined as such? I only started this as I thought it would be fun, interesting and encouraging to others who read the Arkham Horror novels, and I thought it was permitted as I've seen other summaries of books on wikibooks. Dayne90 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Your problem is it is just the plot... it needs to include an educational textual analysis to be in scope MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

And ideally it'd be a text which has already been the subject of literary analysis, such that the analysis on Wikibooks isn't original research. A notable work of literature like Frankenstein or Moby-Dick would easily meet that requirement; a tie-in novel for a tabletop RPG probably does not. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:08, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Annotations to The Joy of Music

Abandoned with minimal content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Author of the book/page here. I wouldn't call it "abandoned": it's still a start, but I'm here and do plan to fill out the rest (most of the annotations are for the early part of the book though).

I'm an experience editor at Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but am not very familiar with Wikibooks standards. When reading this book, I found myself looking up unfamiliar terms and quotes and thought some annotations would be helpful when reading or especially studying the text. It's a notable book by a notable author (extensive Wikipedia page). Here the source text is not freely available, but annotations are easy to add separately. I looked at WB:AT and existing examples of annotations and tried to follow them. Per WB:WIW, the scope is instructional texts (including annotated texts), and minor works are in scope.

I'll grant that this is not large and not likely to become very long – many books only need minor annotations – but the content would certainly have been helpful to me when reading this book.

Are there specific changes you'd suggest or general guidelines to follow in this kind of book?

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 02:42, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Approaches to Reading Instruction

Abandoned >1 decade, minimal content and one subpage. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Archaeology

abandoned >1 decade; minimal content; book-like scope unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:57, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Delete - this is a single page consisting entirely of a series of dictionary-style definitions of fields of archaeology. This isn't a book, and it's not a meaningful step on the path to writing a book. If someone is interested in writing a book on this topic, they're going to be better off starting from a clean slate. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:24, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The Logic of War

This is a summary of a recently published book (ISBN 9798231871537); it is not itself a book. (It may be an attempt to promote the book.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

The "non answer" on the author's talk page strongly implies they are associated with the author of the book and this is highly likely to be promotional in intent. I've speedy deleted it. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 10:53, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

A New Mathematical Constant: The Sigma Spiral

As stated in the title, this book is an attempt to define a new mathematical constant; this is original research and is not appropriate for Wikibooks.

(As a more general matter, the fact that a mathematical problem has a solution which cannot be expressed as a closed-form expression does not necessarily make that solution a useful or meaningful "constant". There are an endless number of problems like this, e.g. the positive solution of $cos\ x=x\approx 0.7391$ has no closed-form solution either, but is not considered a "constant" as it has no greater significance.)

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:54, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning. It could potentially have a home at Wikiversity, but original research is not within scope here. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The author of this book made some comments on their talk page which I've copied here:

Thank you for raising this issue. I believe the article "A New Mathematical Constant: The Sigma Spiral" should not be deleted, but revised. Overclaims like calling it "a sibling of π" should be avoided. We should soften the narrative, emphasizing that this is an exploratory idea, not an established fact. This way, the page can remain open to discussion for readers while maintaining academic accuracy. Nazwa Shabrina (discuss • contribs) 08:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I maintain that the nature of this piece as an "exploratory idea" is precisely the issue. Per WB:SOURCE, "Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research"; the site's focus is on creating definitive texts which teach established topics. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:45, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Pythagoras in the Forge

This is an essay, not a book. Its focus is solely on promoting a single (fairly unlikely) idea, not on providing instructional material. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Keep : The intention and the aim of this textbook is clearly to convey the historical, physical, and music-theoretical background to the discovery of musical intervals. --Bautsch (discuss • contribs) 23:48, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Delete per stated reasoning. It is not structured like a book based on well-established and peer-supported principles and reads instead more like original research and argumentation. It could potentially have a home at Wikiversity. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:19, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Algebra Textbook: Book 1 - Set Theory

Redundant to other books (e.g. Set Theory), created in mass volume of edits by unresponsive editor, suspected quality issues as a result. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:14, 8 October 2025 (UTC)