Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/A History of Nejd

A History of Nejd
Just a table of contents for two years, close to a speedy for no meaningful content. Comment in edit history suggests it was once part of a deleted book, but not which one. Unlikely to be developed further. Orphaned, abandoned... Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:17, 23 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Structure and scope are clear. As for that deleted book, it seems the deleted "book" consisted only of this page (but on a sub-page) and the main page (where this page is now) which contained only a link to the contents. --Swift (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I'm all for keeping useful stubs, but this is one of those cases that it is just too old and doesn't have any real content, so my first inclination was to support the deletion. But as Swift says above, there is a clear effort made into the structuring of the project. Because the scope is so restricted, there seems not to exist any other project that it can be merged to, it also makes it very difficult to see this stub preventing other works from being created. I'll support the keep this time, even if it will probably not evolve. --Panic (talk) 07:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

A History of Nejd
Delete as having no meaningful content, per WB:Deletion: "delete pages with no meaningful content" and "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content". In this state since 2007‎; 181 words. In particular, TOC-only page with with no actual content. For the record, I do not consider bulletted itemized outlines to be "actual content"; some may differ.

For reference, kept in 2010 in Requests for deletion/A History of Nejd, which I think was based on a different intepretation of "meaningful content". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
 * As good as dead. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 21:18, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * This looks potentially useful to someone who decides they want to contribute on the subject, and (noting the previous discussion) I do not think it would present an obstacle to such a person. The term "meaningful content" is clearly explained in the policy and has a broader sense than the current nominator is apparently assigning to it. Sometimes a stub-quality book falls on the same side of the term as explicated in the policy and as interpreted in this current spate of nominations.  However, in the case of this book, the existing outline is clearly "meaningful".  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The WB:DP policy explains that "meaningful content" includes "Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content". I do not consider tables of content to be "actual content", and this is where we disagree. If this 181-word table of contents can sit here for a decade without substantive editing and still survive a RFD, then the bar is very low indeed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem worth keeping--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]]talk 10:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Though it is somewhat a good "layout" for any editor to start working on, it is still a page with absolutely no content whatsoever. --Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 12:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * unless meaningful contents are added.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)