Wikibooks:Requests for deletion

ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions	Assistance	Requests
General \| Proposals \| Projects \| Featured books	Administrative \| Technical	Deletion \| Undeletion \| Import \| Upload \| Permissions

Shortcut

WB:RFD

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.

Salute, Jonathan! and its translations

Latest comment: 2 days ago22 comments7 people in discussion

There are a couple of issues here:

Beyond their introductions, all of these books are written in languages which are not English, making them out of scope for the English Wikibooks.
All but one of these books are in fact written in constructed languages, most of them in recently created conlangs. In some cases (e.g. Sin Chao, Jonathan!), I can't find any reliable sources describing the target language outside of the translation itself.
Most of the translations (i.e. other 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)Reply

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

Author of the book here. I originally wanted to put it in the Interlingue 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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

So the idea is the following:

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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

(I would leave the ones in languages with an ISO-639 code and Wikipedia here, of course) — Mithridates (discuss • contribs) 14:13, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

Globasa: [1] [2]
Mini: [3] [4] [5]

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

┌─────────────┘
I don't know if this is helpful since it wouldn't apply to most of these, but s:mul: could hold some of these. — Arlo Barnes (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that would be within the scope of that project. I'm not aware of any other situation where Wikisource publishes translations of texts created on Wikimedia projects - that's usually left up to other language editions of the same project. — Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

In this situation there isn't a separate s:ie: distinct from Multilingual Wikisource (see meta:Wikisource#List of Wikisources). In fact, there are very few multilingual wikis in the Wikimedia sphere; while this project could move to a Miraheze-hosted or similar wiki farm location, I think it would be a missed opportunity. I suppose an Interlingue book could be started in shelf:Constructed languages which would have all 100 chapters as an appendix (and likewise for the other languages), but that also seems non-ideal since it requires an English-language text that doesn't currently exist to be created. WB:AT seems to describe a similar situation to this one and prescribe Wikisource as the solution, and WB:SOURCE mentions fiction as out-of-scope for Wikibooks (even as in this case, language-educational fiction). s:mul:Wikisource:about Wikisource simply speaks of source texts and doesn't mention publication requirements, so maybe that is specific to some of the monolingual editions? — Arlo Barnes (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Keep 100% keep. These books are a core part of language textbooks on Wikibooks and have been for years. Not sure why this is even being debated.--Xania

^talk 17:55, 16 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

With all due respect, some of the books included in this nomination (like Sin Chao, Jonathan!) are written in constructed languages which are not substantially attested anywhere else. I struggle to imagine any educational purpose for such a book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:12, 17 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

International Baccalaureate

Latest comment: 5 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

Probably, but are the linked books even useful? IB exams change from year to year - sometimes quite dramatically - so an old exam guide is of very limited value. Many of these books were written 10-15 years ago, and some of them (like IB French) even have comments indicating that they're no longer applicable. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:18, 8 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Character List for Baxter&Sagart

Latest comment: 10 months ago8 comments4 people in discussion

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

I 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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Suomen kieli käyttöön

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

I was going to say whether we should ask any fiwikibooks sysop to maybe see if this could be transwikied to fiwb if it's within the scope there. 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)Reply

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

AT&T Mobility FAQ

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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

@Kittycataclysm: See the newly developed Wikibooks:Outdated books. JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 00:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Algebra/Chapter 10/Symmetric Polynomials

Latest comment: 1 year ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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)Reply

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_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

Puredyne

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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

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

Template:Qr-twwp

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 17:37, 30 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

Ghouls of the Miskatonic

Latest comment: 8 months ago5 comments4 people in discussion

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

Annotations to The Joy of Music

Latest comment: 25 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

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

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

I'm an experience editor at Wikipedia and Wiktionary, but am not very familiar with Wikibooks standards. When reading this book, I found myself looking up unfamiliar terms and quotes and thought some annotations would be helpful when reading or especially studying the text. It's a notable book by a notable author (extensive Wikipedia page). Here the source text is not freely available, but annotations are easy to add separately. I looked 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)Reply

Pinging @Kittycataclysm and @Nbarth. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:15, 21 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I think I stand by my original reasoning given that no work has been done on it, and I don't think it contains enough content to hang around in main space for so long. What about moving it to user space? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:16, 23 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Template:Deleted page

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Per Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals#Retiring Template:Deleted page, this is because the template is unnecessary given that creation protection (salting) is used instead. I am also proposing the deletion of the following categories used by this template:

Thanks. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 29 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

This seems premature - Category:Protected deleted pages is still in use for pages with generic names. Is there a plan to transition those pages to create protection; if so, can that be implemented before deleting the templates/categories? Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

JJPMaster proposed that the pages listed in that category should be moved to the title blacklist, and that {{naming policy notice}} shall be fully protected and used as an interface (title blacklist) message. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 30 January 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Omphalographer: Have you seen this reply? JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 15:28, 11 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have, but I'm not sure I follow. These templates, and the categories which they populate, are currently in use. Once that's no longer the case, I have no objection to deleting them - but they need to be delinked first. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:20, 12 February 2026 (UTC)Reply

I deleted the categories mentioned above, moved all the generic titles to the title blacklist, and for those pages that used {{Deleted page}}, I deleted then applied creation protection. An uninvolved admin can delete {{Deleted page}} and then close this request. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Cereal Grains Through History

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Abandoned with no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:18, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

Kittycataclysm: The author (Karosent) objects to the deletion per their talk page:

:Yes, please do not delete this wiki book. It is a work in progress. It is just taking some time to make progress on it. Thank you.

Courtesy ping to @Karosent as the author of the book for their input. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 30 March 2026 (UTC)Reply

If the user does intend to work on it, I think the best course of action would be moving it to user space until more progress is made. Having abandoned works around the main space is a bit messy. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Courtesy ping to Karosent again. Do you agree with the pages being moved to your userspace? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Publications/Wireless Weekly/Issues/1928 03 23

Latest comment: 9 days ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Transcribed from a magazine copy that cannot be traced via the URL provided. Generally archival of primary source works is undertaken on Wikisource (not Wikibooks), backed by a suitable page scan. This isn't at present. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This doesn't need an RfD since it is obviously out of scope. You can instead put a CSD tag on the page. Additionally, it seems that the entire /Publications section contains only source works here, so it might require a mass deletion. kingofnuthin (talk) 17:32, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Samuel.dellit looping you in here so you're aware. I don't think any pages like this (i.e. source text) can be kept here, since we are explicitly and unambiguously not a text repository per WB:SOURCE. I am inclined to speedily delete for that reason, but I want to hear from the primary editor. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:40, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looping me in.

This is not simply a transcription of the magazine.

It includes new formatting to make the content better reachable.

It includes commentary to place the transcribed material in context.

It permits related material to be placed in chronological order.

The version here is not complete (as per banner included), hence the URL link not working (National Library of Australia's Trove has been updated).

There is no point in placing this material on Wikisource as the Trove website is functionally similar and now provides for text correction (a fairly recent development).

I have not be editing Wikibooks for the last six month's following a personal matter but now slowly returning to the task.

Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I'm still not sure whether this makes it in-scope at Wikibooks and suitable for the book-like scope of this work, so I'm looping in other admins to weigh in on scope and consensus @Leaderboard @MarcGarver @JJPMaster @SHB2000. For material that is planned but not yet enacted after a significant period, I'm wondering if user space is more suitable than main space. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

This is just one page of a book, right? It's not like the entire wikibook is a transcription. I'm inclined to keep it unless there is something I am missing. "For material that is planned but not yet enacted after a significant period" - that's a draft and can generally stay in article space. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:09, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

My thoughts are similar to Leaderboard's. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 05:47, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Leaderboard @SHB2000 Thank you, and good to know. Unless I am misunderstanding, the plan is actually to host many source texts in this book's namespace (see other subpages in History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Topical/Publications) and not limited to this one page. Additionally, do we have anything in policy regarding how long drafts can stay in mainspace? I couldn't find anything, and it strikes me as unconstructive to the project if pages with significant issues (e.g. scope, quality, etc) are left in the mainspace for months to years. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm Thank you for your considered responses, the following is provided as background summary.

(1) I should mention that all of these pages were speedily deleted six months ago on the basis of breach of copyright, despite the fact that they are in the public domain (yes I was remiss in not making this clear in the relevant discussion pages, and yes I was aware of the need for copyright explanation, but was overly focussed on content creation). I was hit by about 20 simultaneous speedily delete notifications, responded to 2 or 3 thinking that would be sufficient, but later found they had all been deleted (I was not active on Wikibooks at the time). My intention is to provide clear public domain information for each page in the coming months, but I am only one person and need time to give effect. Copyright worldwide is quite complex.

(2) I was hit by this RfD about 2 weeks ago, nominally a single subpage, but with the threat of dozens of subpages being similarly treated. This time the basis of the RfD was breach of the "Not a text repository" policy, of which I was not previously aware. I see in the policy that there is a clear exception for annotated texts and I will further develop content in support of that exception (you will see that is my general practice in any event). There are literally hundreds of articles in this Wikibook already heavily annotated, simply on the basis of good authorship e.g.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Biographies/Clement_Edgar_Ames/Notes

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/History_of_wireless_telegraphy_and_broadcasting_in_Australia/Topical/Stations/7BU_Burnie/Notes

But, again, I am only one person and need time to give effect. Samuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 19:59, 4 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

@Kittycataclysm As far as I can see, isn't the goal to annotate most of those pages? And there is no set limit for a draft. The main reason we'd delete a draft is if the book itself has nothing of value, which is not the case here. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:49, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Got it, thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:06, 6 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

As an admin who was involved in deleting this (and related subpages) and only undeleting it later per the author's request, I therefore recuse (will not do) on taking any administrative actions for this request. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:33, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Delete - including other similar pages - per nom. Transcriptions of previously published works, like these magazines, belong on Wikisource. I don't see any evidence of substantial commentary in any of the pages I've looked at. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:47, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I'd note that creating content like History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Editing/Fair dealing or History of wireless telegraphy and broadcasting in Australia/Editing/Not a text repository is not helpful. This sort of argumentative content clearly does not belong in a book. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep - including other similar pages - annotated texts WB:AT are a clear exception to Wikibooks "Not a text repository" policy; these are subpages of a very large body of work (I understand the largest Wikibook in Wikibooks) and integral to its overall development; yes, the pages are a work in progress and the annotations are as yet limited, but I will now prioritise their developmentSamuel.dellit (discuss • contribs) 19:28, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep . Annotated texts are an exception and while there can be a debate about how much annotation is enough, at the moment I think we should accept the primary editor's position in respect of their intent. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

History Books

Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Minimal existing content is editorialized, book scope unclear, no sourcing —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 27 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Comment - there is one unlinked subpage of this book, History Books/Who Was Alexander the Great/Introduction. I'm not impressed by the content (it's basically historical fiction written for a young child), but it's not hopeless. I'd encourage the author to create an account to allow us to communicate with them. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:34, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

If it is really aimed at children, shouldn't it be moved to the Wikijunior: namespace? kingofnuthin (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

FORTRAN program for calculating representative parameters and operating conditions of AC overhead transmission lines

Latest comment: 13 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

As the title suggests, this page is primarily code for a computer program, not a book. Wikibooks is not a code hosting web site; this code might be more appropriate as a repository on a code hosting site such as Codeberg or GitHub. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:30, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Delete , the book seems to be out of scope in its current state, especially considering that most of it is just code and it has no subpages. kingofnuthin (talk) 18:35, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I agree that this is not a book in its current form. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 28 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I have started the creation of this book and I request an additional time before deleting it. Since I started, some time has passed in which I have not been able to continue adding information, but I intend to add information on the way in which the different parameters of the overhead power lines are calculated, the electric and magnetic fields created by them, their operating regimes and the possible problems of overvoltage due to resonance phenomena in some cases. It was intended to show some of these questions with the calculations made with the program.

If you give me an additional time to introduce more information later you can decide if that information is sufficient or not to keep the book. I have the problem that (as can be seen in this writing) my English is not good enough to introduce directly into the book what I am writing and I have to reredact everything using some artificial intelligence program; this delays the process much. Still I request a little more time to be able to show that the information introduced is of value.

Thank you very much for your understanding. Jon Peli Oleaga (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Various Transwiki Namespace Pages

Latest comment: 15 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This list includes pages in the Transwiki namespaces that have mostly been imported from enwiki, which makes them unusable in a book. If there are any pages here that can be turned into a book, let me know and I can strike them out. I believe that all of these pages should be deleted as we do not allow encyclopedic material on Wikibooks, and these are mostly articles that were imported from English Wikipedia. kingofnuthin (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Transwiki:Cattle judging, Transwiki:Horse grooming, and Transwiki:Hair Color Tips and Tricks could be viable book content. None of the others obviously looked usable to me. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I excluded Transwikis that could be added to books here, but the pages you mentioned do not seem usable to me (unless a specific book where they could be added is created). Additionally, in Transwiki:Hair Color Tips and Tricks, the tone is unfit for Wikibooks. kingofnuthin (talk) 17:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

I deleted a few of these that seemed unambiguously out of scope. I agree that most of them are not sufficiently book-like in scope on their own, and I think they warrant deletion unless anyone can identify specific books that can host them. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:01, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

A second course to linear algebra - Matrix algebra

Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Abandoned, with several unresolved quality issues as outlined at User talk:Akira tanzivana. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:04, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Bengali–Assamese script

Latest comment: 15 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Abandoned for three years with minimal content that is seemingly redundant to Bengali. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:08, 3 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Objective Projection: Why the Brain Never Forgets Some Stories

Latest comment: 3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Undisclosed AI-generated content. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 9 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

'''Keep''' — Comment from page author/subject expert.

I am Levent Bulut, the originator of the ''Objective Projection'' methodology described in this book (ORCID: 0009-0007-7500-2261, Wikidata: Q138048287). I want to address the AI-generated content concern directly and transparently.

'''On the content itself:''' The methodology, theoretical framework (the six-variable operator E(r) = projS(M, T, V, Δ, Ω, Ng), the Six Golden Rules, the Six-Layer Framework), and all original arguments are my own intellectual work, developed and published independently. This is documented through:

26 DOI-registered academic publications on Zenodo (search: "Levent Bulut Objective Projection")
A peer-reviewed submission currently under review at ''Digital Humanities Quarterly''
Parallel Turkish-language Wikibook and Wikiversity pages on the same methodology
An open-source SFT dataset on Hugging Face (leventbulut/objective-projection)

'''On AI assistance:''' I used AI tools (Claude) for English translation polish and copy-editing from my Turkish source materials — the same way a non-native English-speaking academic would use a human translator or editor. The ''ideas, structure, terminology, citations, and arguments'' are entirely my own and pre-date the Wikibooks version, traceable through Zenodo DOI timestamps starting in 2025.

'''Proposed remedy instead of deletion:''' I am happy to:

Add a clear AI-assistance disclosure to the book's preface, per Wikibooks transparency norms
Add inline citations to the underlying DOI-registered publications for every major claim
Link to the parallel Turkish version and academic record

This would address the ''undisclosed'' part of the concern (which is the actionable policy issue) while preserving content that is original academic work by an identifiable author with a published track record. Deletion of original scholarship because translation assistance was used would set a concerning precedent for non-native English contributors.

I request a few days to add the disclosure and citations before any deletion action. ~~~~ ~2026-28847-60 (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Administrative assistance needed: Automated filters blocking structural improvements and disclosures

Request for Help — I am Levent Bulut, the author of this book. I have already provided my AI disclosure and academic credentials (ORCID, DOI list) here in this discussion.

I am trying to update the book to comply with Wikibooks standards by:

Adding a formal AI assistance disclosure at the top of the page.

Restructuring the content into an instructional textbook format (adding Learning Objectives).

Converting plain text formulas into LaTeX ( format).

Updating references to include full academic DOI records.

However, the automated filter is blocking all my attempts:

If I try to replace the content with the improved version, it triggers the "large amount of content removal" filter.

If I try to add specific academic links, it triggers the "automated link/spam" filter.

I am essentially trapped by the filters while trying to improve the book and follow transparency norms. Could an administrator please either whitelist my account or manually apply the improved version of the text? I am ready to provide the full MediaWiki code here if requested. My intent is purely constructive and academic. ~2026-28847-60 (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Hi, @~2026-28847-60. Your account was incorrectly locked by a steward. It is now currently unlocked. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Please review Wikibooks:Artificial intelligence. It states unequivocally that LLMs may not be used to generate or summarize material and ideas at Wikibooks, and that translations made by LLMs are not allowed on Wikibooks. The fact that you did not disclose your usage of AI is part of the problem, but disclosing it does not make it allowable either.

More broadly, based on what you've said above, the content of this book is a reflection of your personal theories on writing. This is essentially Wikibooks:Original research and is not permitted. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Themes in Literature/Isolation and Community/Kindred1 and User:Lesleysiri/sandbox

Latest comment: 6 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Both pages were created by Lesleysiri, who has not been active since creating them. It is also obvious from the writing style that they are AI-generated; in the sandbox, there are two images generated from DALL-E. I disclose that I came from Commons; see c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Lesleysiri. Whyiseverythingalreadyused (discuss • contribs) 03:12, 12 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Keep Themes in Literature/Isolation and Community/Kindred1, at least for now. While this page was created by User:Lesleysiri, it has been extensively modified by User:Doctorxgc, who wrote most of the content in the book. While the images (which have been removed) were clearly AI-generated, I don't think that the text was; the page was created in late 2022 and its text does not seem characteristic of ChatGPT output from that era. I'm not certain that the content of this book as a whole is appropriate for Wikibooks - the contents are largely a collection of personal essays reflecting on readings, not instructional matter - but that should be addressed separately.

Delete the sandbox. The content was copied into mainspace in 2022; it's clearly outlived its purpose. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:34, 13 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Template:Slideshow

Latest comment: 28 minutes ago1 comment1 person in discussion

According to Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Slideshow, this is used on very, very few (if not non-book) pages, two of which are in userspace. In addition, I am also proposing the deletion of two MediaWiki CSS/JS pages in which the slideshow template relies on:

Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 00:41, 19 May 2026 (UTC)Reply