Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/4chan Chronicle

4chan Chronicle
This is more a set of external links with little work done on creating books over six months. Basically just a huge self-congratulatory pat-on-the-back. This "book" contravenes WB:SOAP with comments like "One of the key's to 4chan's success was that it recreated a captivating ephermeral tradition built on reposting the best and forgetting the worst, (perhaps not seen since the invention of writing, as the Ancient Greeks note)" and "/b/ is consumed by Cancer. Moot decides that forcing out users is not such a bad idea after all, and screws with it's CSS to unleashing flashing lights, music loops, and other horrors upon the unlucky survivors." It contravenes WB:HOST because it is being used to host a link-farm rather than creating content. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 01:12, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I wrote it in the style of a 4chan user, because that is the only way to really see it's history for what it is, through our deeply biased point of view. I disagree on the comment about a link farm, because these are important primary sources that I've noted down, and their authors no longer have any self interest after nearly a decade. However, it was simply too much work for one man to document, so I agree that it probably a poor fit for Wikibooks. I will move it over back to my own wiki, and improve it on my own, so as long as I can export the pages. Antonizoon (discuss • contribs) 01:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you seen the Manual of Style? Sure it is a proposal but it is a good system to follow. The style of a 4chan user is fine on a message-board but this wiki is for writing instructional textbooks and you were definitely headed down the wrong road with this "book". 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 02:41, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I must object to "this wiki is for writing instructional textbooks and you were definitely headed down the wrong road". For as long as I can remember "Wikibooks is for instructional textbooks" has been one heuristic among many, and not a hard rule. Is the Cookbook an instructional textbook? What about Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter? Duplode (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least for the Muggles' Guide, the intent is that it should be at least in part a textbook. IMO it started off down the wrong road, and it should have been more about the techniques used in the writing that seem to have made it into something of a classic. I am doing my humble best to bend it in that direction, but my skills in English analysis are somewhat lacking. I definitely can't speak for the cookbook, however it does seem to me that cookbooks, being collections of methods for achieving certain outcomes, are effectively textbooks, albeit not high school or college level instructional texts. Chazz (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You do have a point. My main concern is just that I feel "this is not a textbook, kill it with fire!" is a misrepresentation of the current community consensus. Cf. the last discussion about WIW that I took part in, about two years ago. Duplode (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I've backed up the data from the page. You may do whatever you wish on the Wikibook now. Antonizoon (discuss • contribs) 01:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * While there may be issues and everyone is granted an opinion, you have been working the project alone and very recently for our time-frames (February 2015‎). This RfD has no real merit, the critiques could have been better done had it urged you to make modifications or even had the proponent attempted to join into the effort. The other issue is that the RfD is by an unregistered user, so while the points made should be considered your position automatically is given more consideration due to the basic commitment to register with the project, even more since you have committed content to it.
 * As it stands I see nothing objectionable or unfixable. We do not delete stubs. I'm not closely aware of informed on the subject matter, but even I can recognize the cultural relevance of the proposed task. If you wish not to defend your own efforts or viewpoints there is nothing that can be done... well... I am inclined to object to the deletion even if you decide to cease your contributions because of this hackle... --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 03:59, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * if you are not familiar with the subject, I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia article at 4chan, which covers the topic far better than this book. This material really isn't suited to Wikibooks. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 04:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It depends on the approach, how educational (historically informative) it becomes. As it is to me it presents an attempted time-line and identification of relevant people (we have already several other projects that do the same around other subjects). That 4chan (for good or bad) is a cultural reference, can't be refuted. I see no reason to push for a deletion at this point, in fact I see as more damaging the alienation of a contributive editor. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 05:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We already have an excellent attempt to record the history of 4chan (again I urge you to look at the Wikipedia article), without using tripe like "Takbir, m*therf*cker." If this book took the article as a model rather than just writing a directory of who was who, then that would be something worth having on Wikibooks. 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm just going to note that this nomination is invalid per policy as it was created by an unregistered anonymous user. As they seem to know their way around wikis quite well, and are participating in votes on other projects. I'm going to strongly suggest that they either register an account or log into their current one in order to move forward with this. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 07:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - sorry but the policy says nothing of the kind. It states that "[every] registered Wikibooks user can participate in the discussion" but does not say that anonymous users can't nominate for deletion or take part. I strongly suggest that there is nothing wrong with being an anonymous user and equally there is nothing wrong with taking part in discussions on other Wikimedia wikis (or are you going to suggest that there is a policy on that too?). 46.254.186.36 (discuss) 21:20, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Lets not be obtuse, the wording clearly makes a distinction, even you aren't arguing about that, so why make the distinction in the first place ? Now, as I initially stated (and since I'm so old on the project) we don't object to an open participation but your unregistered status does put you in a very low standing on this process.
 * No one is dismissing your views and opinions, I even agree with some of it even if I think you have gone about it in a very destructive way.
 * It is clear and logic to me that an unregistered user wouldn't (and shouldn't) be able to run home a deletion process against a contributive user (even an unregistered one, whatever the arguments) if there is no registered user seconding him on his position. I leave it up to you to consider the why this should be so...--Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Keep per above. - After reading this discussion, I've decided that I will keep working on this book, but improve it taking into account the criticisms of  The current page is only a draft, collaboratively written by many actual anons from 4chan and sourced from what we could find, which I then put together here for my colleagues or other readers to rectify or elaborate. Naturally, due to the dearth of reliable sources from the early days (such as archived threads) and the use of secondary sources written five or ten years after the event, the people who were actually there may have a different angle. I invite them to help fix the book and provide their side of the story. Antonizoon (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I can feel that 46.254.186.36 has some good points, so I will take that into consideration when improving this book (there are no pages yet anyway). I will also start drawing some well-sourced material from my colleague's 4chan.docx, which this Wikibook was actually meant to provide a public viewable version of. Antonizoon (discuss • contribs) 23:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There are no fundamental problems that would justify deletion. The claim that the book is a link farm is, quite frankly, groundless. 4chan is a legitimate subject, and any eventual concerns with tone can be dealt with without resorting to extreme measures. --Duplode (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * This is a book draft in the early stages (note the 1/4 stage symbol in the top right corner). What it needs is collaboration and copy-editing and it will grow into a decent book. Green Giant (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't say it any better than Green Giant. Chazz (talk) 15:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)