How to Enthrone the Sacred Heart

I'm not sure why my page was deleted. I can't find it in the deletion logs. I also can't find it in the discussion logs. I don't think there was any discussion about it, and I don't think it violates any policies.shenaw2016

Here's the log entry: link. It was created by shenaw2016 on 5 and 6 December, and {{query}}'d by JackPotte on 6 December. Nothing further appears to have happened until it was deleted by JackPotte on 13 December. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's clearly not a textbook and looks more like a single page "how to" guide for one specific religious practice. On its own, it doesn't seem to meet the Wikibooks scope. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 15:01, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add some books to the entry and have it reconsidered. Is there a way for me to add to the entry and have a discussion about it? shenaw2016 (discuss • contribs)

Language Arts

Its a valid topic, perhaps it can be userfied, wish to work on it further. -Inowen (discuss • contribs) 06:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Done I've moved it to User:Inowen/Language Arts, so you can take your time to develop it before reindexing with the books. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:09, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Bibliography of Henry Hoenigswald

I fail to understand why this was deleted. JackPotte objects to it being an encylopedia entry, but a bibliography and an encyclopedia entry are not the same thing. There are other bibliographies on Wikibooks (I am reluctant to draw attention to them for fear that our deletion happy Jack will have a field day). I have read the deletion policy and see no obvious reason why this book falls under any of its stipulations. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 19:24, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tibetologist, JackPotte: This seems to me like an in-between case. A large bibliography does seem like a plausible book for this project; on the other hand, a small bibliography is the sort of thing that would be attached to an encyclopedia article, and is not a book in much the same way that most small things aren't books; a book is made up of a bunch of smaller modules that are arranged as a whole.

One view of the role of Wikibooks in the wikimedian sisterhood is that it provides a place for topic coverage that's too in-depth for Wikipedia, especially if it's too in-depth in a coordinated way. This looks rather marginal, of small-to-medium-ish size with relatively little internal structure (mostly just a chronological list). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero, JackPotte: The reason I moved this to Wikibooks is because the bibliography was deemed too long to host at the bottom of the Wikipedia page for Hoenigswald. So, my thinking was exactly, if it is inappropriate for an encylopedia article that how about a Wikibook. For context, there are Wikipedia pages with bibliographies this size, but also there are a number of bibliographies that are Wikibooks. --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero, JackPotte: So, does the dying down of discussion here mean there is a consensus to restore the article? --Tibetologist (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Done undeletion. To delete again, please open a new discussion.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Grammar

Hello. I'm requesting that a book I created, Spanish Grammar, be undeleted. There is a subsection on the main Spanish language learning book about grammar, but the topic of Spanish grammar is large enough that it warrants its own book. There is a book entitled English Grammar, for example. The current Spanish Wikibook is 96 pages in its PDF. A book about Spanish grammar would, and should, easily excede that. Caitlinschultz (discuss • contribs) 16:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't see why this would be deleted. We don't prohibit multiple books on a single subject, let alone multiple books on different-though-related subjects. I'd be inclined to undelete, but would prefer to hear some remark from the deleting admin so we stay far, far away from any risk of a wheel war. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:38, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, multiple books on a single subject aren't prohibited, but as it stands, this book is of no useful value. I think it's better to move it to their userpage/sandbox and let the content develop from there. Afterwards it can easily be moved back to mainspace. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I find it disappointing that this user did not engage with me in a discussion at my talk page, but rather started a discussion here without first answering my question on my talk page. I, personally, am not a fan of several separate books relating to the same topic scattered all over the place (a problem that has some significance at the English Wikiversity). I don't have any strong opinion on this matter, but as I've seen that an English Grammar book (and English in Use: multiple books relating to the same topic) and no prohibition relating to the "matter of multiple books on a single subject" stands: I wouldn't hold any disagreements with this book being undeleted with consensus (as standard of any WB:RFD discussion). —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I hope you won't be too upset with me for saying this, Atcovi, but to me it sure looked like your talk page comment was sort of cutting off debate... seemed to have a sort of air of finality about it. Chazz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

You're actually right. My memory has failed me. Infact, the question was in my edit summary. I apologize for this wronging of mines. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 19:46, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

I have to agree with Pi Zero on this one; Spanish grammar can be convoluted enough that it merits its own book, and is far too involved for a general book on Spanish in any case. Which of course puts me into opposition with Leaderboard; but I have to say that I'm not happy with the recent trend of sequestering nascent books in user space. Every book has to start somewhere, and isn't it better for a book, in its early days, to be out in mainspace where other authors and editors can have some input? Chazz (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

@Chazz: The bar can be set low. If there is even a few pages of useful value, then we can move it back. It's just a small guard against cases wherein some users plan something but never complete it (but arguably the query template is better suited for it). I don't mind restoring it provided the query template is set so that we can determine whether it is likely to be developed or not. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

We're an open wiki. Anyone can start a book. Discouraging people from contributing is lethal to a wiki and we should not entertain such a thing for a moment. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:58, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Restored per Pi zero's finishing comment and some more pondering on this. Apologies if any of this discourages you @OP. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 20:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks everybody for the input on this discussion, and thanks for the restoration Atcovi. I'll get to working on the book. Cheers Caitlinschultz (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Open_and_Distance_Education/Course_Design/Overview

It is an orphan. I decided to put the content on the parent page "Course_Design".

@Rjbfigueroa: Done . Next time you can add a {{speedy}} tag. See Wikibooks:Deletion policy. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:10, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Buyer's Guide For Building a Computer

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

Pinyin

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

History of China/The Period of Three Country

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

Delete Rubik Cube from Puzzles

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

Delete How Much You Need To Expect You ll Pay For A Good el secreto

As said , propose delete How Much You Need To Expect You ll Pay For A Good el secreto as
(1) It is not in English
(2) Even when you google translate it, it seems like it is copy and paste from somewhere else

Proposed by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Seems to be deleted now. SelfieCity (discuss • contribs) 22:41, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Electromagnetics

This book is far too short to be called a book. Since it hasn't been changed in the last months, there is no perspective in my eyes. --Utonsal (discuss • contribs) 23:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Keep - Wikibooks policy is, I think, to keep books that are in their early stages to allow work to be done on them. Granted that there is little happening on this one at present, the field is vast, and work could easily form around the nucleus that is this single page, given time. Chazz (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete In fact, the book appears not to have been edited substantively since 2013 (the most recent contentful edit there appears to have been by QuiteUnusual), and does not appear to provide any meaningful framework for a book. So I don't think there's a viable book there, despite the fact that the apparent topic is big enough to support one. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Delete There are stub books, and there are books which have virtually nothing in them, and I'm inclined to think that this is the latter. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Merge This topic are more to A-level Physics topic (from where I am from), perhaps merge to A-level_Physics maybe a wise decision. Decisions by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Suicide

Moved to the Reading Room here. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 09:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Big Seven Crypto Study

This "book" is quite obviously original research as it is the full text of a self-published "study" or "audit" the PDF version of which is hosted on SourceForge. As I note in Talk:Big Seven Crypto Study, I suspect the two original authors mentioned in the text do not really exist. The purpose of this book is to generate some credibility for a very suspicious piece of software called Goldbug Crypto Messenger. I am not a big fan of deleting stuff, so perhaps it is better to review the big fat warning I just added to the top of the book. --Thüringer (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Delete Opinion: speedy, because original research, plus possible copyvio since we have no assurance the editors here are the writers of the PDF. Chazz (talk) 02:35, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment : Move the original research to Wikiversity?--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Not if it's copyvio. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Media_and_Society:_Summer_2019

Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research.

1. Delete JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Possible class textbook attempt? Chazz (talk) 15:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Remove the Bridge Crossing

As I am now cleaning up the Puzzle wikibooks on Puzzles/River Crossing , I came across this pages that needed to be deleted due to the pages are listed as list of puzzles which does not add depth to the puzzle wikibooks (which was causing the book to be nominated for deletion at first place) also this was duplicate of the contents I will be writing later on :

1. Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing/Solution
2. Puzzles/Logic puzzles/Bridge Crossing
3. Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge
4. Puzzles/How do you ... ?/Crossing the Bridge/Solution

Exercise as it relates to Disease/Feeling hot for health

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

Undergraduate Mathematics

The scope of this book is too broad. The Linear Algebra wikibook is a good example of what such a project could be. I came up with the idea yonks ago on undergrad myself and no-one else has taken interest, because I was new to the platform and sketching out ideas.

I'm happy to contribute to other projects, I just don't want people to click this malformed idea instead.

Knittedbees (discuss • contribs) 08:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Question: Knittedbees many of the pages have a rich history, but I noticed on the logs of some that they were imported in May 2014. Is the bulk of the existing content simply imported from English Wikipedia in 2014? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 21:05, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the idea was to use Wikipedia as a template, but pretty much writing a few books like Analysis, Algebra and Dynamics from scratch focusing on exercises and worked examples would be a better approach (i.e. nothing like the Wikipedia articles I tried importing). (logged out Knittedbees) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.2.57.14 (talk • contribs) 23:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete it has a lot of content but as explained above they are merely imported articles from Wikipedia in 2014. As such, readers would be better off reading the updated articles on Wikpedia than reading this book. So it makes sense to get rid of it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

• As someone with experience in undergrad mathematics, I think the topics in this book are better off as independent wikibooks. Instead, I would favour creating a category of topics that are suitable for undergraduate-level mathematics. P.S: some of the topics are in the wrong category. Stokes' theorem and line integral are in vector calculus, not complex analysis (and there's nothing complex-valued in them, though ideas in line integrals pop up when doing contours and working out complex integrals). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Intellectual Property and the Internet/Arab Spring

In the course of trying to form a mental image of everything that already exists in this very raw, semi-coherent book that I seem to have adopted (or that has adopted me, we break-up and get back together several times per month still), I just can't see any path forward for this particular page. While I can see how the Arab Spring could be used to illustrate real-world implications of public policy regarding content ownership, there's no clay to mold here.

• The treatment is too dry and encyclopedic.
• Much of what's there is visually-driven in a way that I interpret as very "un-Wikibooks-like."
• With no pre-existing content tying the events to IP, it would take more effort to bring the prose into focus under that lens than it would to write the content from scratch. If/when I do that, I'd want that work to happen on a page with a broader geographic and temporal scope.

I'm exceedingly new here and will take what's said on the matter as a lesson in the Wikibooks mindset, more than anything. Thanks in advance for any thoughts you choose to share. — ⚞ 🐈ℛogueScholar  ₨Talk🗩 ⚟  My recentmischief  08:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete per nom, just an imported article from en.wikipedia in 2012 with some minor cleanup. It has little to do with "Intellectual Property and the Internet" as it is written, and so it is irrelevant to the book topic in this form. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:17, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for deletion of a page and account

Hi

I created a direct name id‘江雨婷’ and created page 'Cara Kong' with that.

I would like to request Cara Kong page to be shifted to existing account under liv.vervain...should same information with 2 different languages not be allowed, kindly remove page 'Cara Kong'.

Feel free to email me should you need more clarification

Regards Rayna — Preceding unsigned comment added by 江雨婷 (talk • contribs)

There isn't any page or user called Cara Kong here. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

They're asking about Wikipedia:Draft:Cara Kong. @江雨婷: you need to ask on Wikipedia, this is Wikibooks and so is the wrong project. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:53, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Contributions by 58.96.24.235

Potential spam from this anon user:

• The_snake_in_the_bush
• Poo

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Encik Tekateki (talk • contribs)

Taken care of by QuiteUnusual. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 19:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Daftar Permainan PlayStation 2 yang Mendukung Multipemain

User:Jeremy Belpois posted Daftar Permainan PlayStation 2 yang Mendukung Multipemain on this WIkibooks on Bahasa Indonesia although this Wikibooks is primarily for English contents.Plus the contents is nonsensical of the vintage gaming system. He also deleted the delete template set by @DannyS712:

Patrolled by Encik Tekateki (discuss • contribs) 04:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I have put this down for speedy delete again, as it is in the Indonesian language so belongs on Indonesian Wikibooks. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Read Wikibooks:SPEEDY, pages like these do not need to be posted in this page. A simple speedy tag would've sufficed. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:50, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Euclid's Elements

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

Centrelink help

This page had {{delete}} for a few days, but as the author is still working hard on it, the least we can do is give them a chance.

1. Delete It could complement Centrelink, but according to Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? it looks like an inadmissible advertising booklet for a private company. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
2. Neutral while this could be viewed as a breaking the "advertising or self-promotion" rule I think this is pretty borderline in this instance. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 20:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
3. Keep Afaics, it's a how-to about dealing with a government agency — not a private company. Other concerns, such as overall organization, or current lack of completion of some sections, are not RFD-worthy. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 00:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Cookbook:Placenta with Broccoli

The Wikimedia/Wikibooks Cookbook seems like a potentially invaluable resource, but there's at least one recipe in there that is maybe not okay. (It's apparently not letting me put the URL in here, but the title is what you see above.)

I don't claim to know whether or not cooking and eating placenta is culturally okay somewhere in the world, but to me this feels like it was written as a joke?

“This is a tasty dish that the whole family will love.”

“You'll need about 1/2 the placenta of a 6.2 pound baby, or 1/3 the placenta of a 9.3 pound baby.”

“When it looks yummy, serve it.”

I mean...this reads like a recipe for cannibals.

{{vd}} spam --DannyS712 (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep Actually, no, not spam. There was, evidently, extensive discussion here re placenta, back in 2005. A noteworthy precedent in the realm of Cookbook non-censorship (as I put it in another Cookbook RFD in 2011). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 20:59, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Keep I agree it does appear to be bona fide (or at the very least apocryphal). Without a policy based deletion reason, and per WB:CENSOR, we should probably keep it whatever we feel about it (but I'm not a fan); and previous consensus (per Pi zero's link) was to keep these types of pages, and good arguments were made there. For reference the corresponding en.wp article is w:Human placentophagy, suggesting it is within reason to keep. Btw I don't think it should be considered as cannibalism, distasteful yes but a natural product like human milk nonetheless. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:02, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

NVQ Carpentry Level 2

I believe this book needs to be deleted as it contains dangerous information which will put lives at risk for all on site, due to the abundance of miss information contained with in the pages. This book also contains some references from publications which are out of date and plagiarised. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.106.244 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

For perspective, this appears to have started with a comment on the book's talk page by a registered user (who hasn't made any edit on any project afaics), after which an IP6 seconded the criticism and then undid itself, and then the above IP also supported the criticism and also posted here. (I've added a section heading to contain those remarks on the book talk page.) --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Question to 86.182.106.244: can you give any examples of how this book "contains dangerous information" or "miss information" (sic), or is "out of date" or "plagiarised"? Generally books should be fixed rather than discarded if possible. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:07, 11 March 2020 (UTC)