Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY

COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY
Delete. This module should be deleted for a number of reasons: first off, it's been inactive since april, and apart from Synchronous Chat/Introduction, I wouldn't call any of the pages stubs. Also, Computer Technology is not in a bookshelf right now, and although I don't know much about the subject, I'd imagine there is a similar book on the computer science bookshelf. DettoAltrimenti 22:13, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. eternal stup - The little worthy content we should merge it into one of the existing computing book. --Krischik T 07:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. The page was not tagged with , so added it. I've also left notes on the contributors' talk pages notifying them of the VfD. I am also cleaning up the namespace problem noted by User:Derbeth then corrected incorrectly by another user. --JMRyan 23:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete. It's (almost) an eternal stub. Moreover, it has an massively unfocused table of contents covers essentially word processing and instant messaging. The only content and exception to the eternal stub status appears to bear no relation to its place in the table of contents.

Delete. This is garbage. Violates naming policy, pages are eternal stubs, current writing is jibberish. The only thing of value is a blatant plug to yahoo messenger, and that's only valuable to yahoo. -- 00:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Delete Won't be missed Gerard Foley 10:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY/Synchronous Chat/Introduction but Delete other modules of this book. In particular, the page that I linked (which introduces the "Open Source Cirriculum Project") appears to be the source page for Fire Officer IV/About the Open Source Curriculum Project. --Kernigh 20:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete it appears that *everything* on COMPUTER TECHNOLOGY/Synchronous Chat/Introduction has already been copied word-for-word to Fire Officer IV/About the Open Source Curriculum Project. (Or maybe it went the other direction. Either way, it should have been "moved" rather than cut-and-pasted ...) Is there anything else worth keeping? --DavidCary 07:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

General concensus seems to be delete, and the page appears to already have been deleted. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 15:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)