Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Combinatorial Topology

Combinatorial Topology
I am new here and I don't know any of the policies to explain why this should be deleted. But, here is why I think it should be deleted. It has nothing except a few chapter titles and some red links, no content whatsoever. And, the chapter titles that are given are all things already covered in the book Topology. And, it looks like the guy who created it created it over 3 years ago and hasn't touched it since. So, I can't think of a single reason to keep this page. NumberTheorist (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete --Pi zero (talk) 07:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Duplicate scope and content with (the "algebraic topology" portion of) Topology. The other problems you have with it are not problems for Wikibooks. --Swift (talk) 10:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, according to the policies and guidelines, "Absence of meaningful content includes Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content." I would not consider a few chapter titles, likely copied from the one textbook listed as a reference, to be actual content.  So, that is another valid concern.  In fact, this is exactly my other argument.  Someone came along with an intent to start a book over 3 years ago and then "abandoned" the idea and did nothing as far as actual content.  This is an important point as I will likely be nominating several other math books for deletion as I went through every single book last night and found many that have no meaningful content.  Please correct me if I am wrong but I don't see any meaningful content in this book, even if it didn't overlap with Topology. NumberTheorist (talk) 15:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * By and large we don't dump potentially useful frameworks, even if they have lain fallow for years, because someone may, sooner or later, come back to them and turn them into real books. In this case, though, the framework has real problems, as Swift noted. Chazz (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd like to talk about this to understand better. My thoughts: A bunch of crappy books among the good ones makes it harder to find the good ones.  So, if they have no content except chapter titles and haven't been found worthy to be added to for several years, they are more trouble than good.  I don't have tons of time to devote to this, but I looked through all the books in the Mathematics subject last night.  Beside this one, I found 7 books that have basically nothing in them.  On top of that, there are many other books which have very little and should be merged with another book that is already farther along.  All this makes things sloppy and harder to use.


 * Any way, more importantly, Swift told me to read the policies and guidelines and I did and they point to deleting such things. I copied from it above.  This is exactly an abandoned page displaying intent, but no actual content (chapter titles are not content).  The guidelines and policies say this is not meaningful content and this is a reason to delete a page.  Can you explain to me using the guidelines and policies how I am wrong? NumberTheorist (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Last summer there were a number of deletion nominations of abandoned stub books. Most of them did get deleted.  If there was a rule that emerged, it was that an outline alone can be meaningful content if, but only if, it will be significantly helpful for someone who comes along later and decides to adopt the book.  Or something like that.  People didn't always agree on whether or not an empty outline would be significantly helpful.  Here are the archived deletion discussions that I've dug up: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5).  It's also interesting to look at the actual content of the one of these books that wasn't deleted.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The one that wasn't deleted was not deleted more due to a lack of participation rather than any real consensus that it was worth keeping. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The lack of sufficient participation is definitely worth mentioning here; good point. Although, since there was exactly one actual position taken on each side (including the nomination), one might just as well say that it wasn't vindicated due to a lack of participation.  --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for sharing, that makes sense. I will nominate more later probably.  This is probably the worst so maybe more will be deleted if you agree with me, and maybe they won't if you don't.  NumberTheorist (talk) 01:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See Reading_room/General for a discussion on this topic that I've just started in the general discussion reading room. --Swift (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete NumberTheorist (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Chazz (talk) 16:05, 13 February 2010 (UTC)