Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/CPAM with TWW

CPAM with TWW
Hi please delete OpenSolaris. Sorry I have been away for so long. OpenSolaris is no longer a valid subject since Oracle took over Sun. -- tjyang

Also regarding to CPAM with TWW, I think the content fit the Title, it is not a SPAM. It is about using TWW's tool to do application management across OS platforms. TWW's tool is in GNU license, you can use it for free and modified in a GNU license term. The quality of content is another story. Hoping to get more people on board to write this book for free. Looks like not many people are interested about this subject. I won't mind if you delete this for the reason of lack of interest. -- tjyang

The book appears to be abandoned and it appears to be biased towards www.thewrittenword.com bordering on SPAM. --Bernhard Fastenrath 09:59, 26 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the deletion of OpenSolaris, it is mostly an empty stub and unlike this book project covers a broader subject. In relation to this book project it seems to cover especially the software solution created by The Written Word company and so it is within the scope to point out and reference the company resources in it. We have similar projects of this type and unless the editors prevent people to add other points of views, even negative comments or mention competitive products this doesn't constitute spam and an issue that merits a RfD, considering also that there is a reasonable amount of content on this project...
 * This can also be a possible target for the merge of the small content present on the OpenSolaris/Developer or OpenSolaris/Reference Manual if someone finds it useful to save the content. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (Both RfDs are being proposed on the same argument, I'm commenting on CPAM with TWW and explaining what I find different about the two proposals, defending only a keep of CPAM with TWW --Panic (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC))


 * Comment It could be called abandoned in that the main author has not edited at all on Wikibooks lately. (That can be said about quite a few other books.)  However, there is substantial content that appears to be of a reasonable standard, so why should it be discarded?-- Arthur  Vogel  14:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)