Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Compojure

Compojure
Tagged by Weavejester, the main (perhaps only real) contributor following a declined speedy. Reason given was "Requesting deletion: is unlikely to ever be updated. Confuses search engines." QU TalkQu 21:05, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete At first I felt this was a rather tricky issue, but looking around for information on this software, I think everyone would be best served if we let this go.
 * The book seems to be the creation of a fairly small development community which has moved the documentation to the Compojure project website. I don't think it's reasonable to assume that anyone would want to build a separate wikibook based on this outdated one. Policies aside, it seems highly unlikely that anyone will benefit from this book which, with its third place in an internet search for the software and year old information, is actually more likely to confuse people looking for information, hurting both the Compojure project as well as Wikibooks. --Swift (talk) 00:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: I've seen attempts on other books where contributors have moved to other websites and tried to remove content here or tell readers to ignore content here get reversed. The hard truth is that a great deal of the books on software here are likely to be outdated.  I merged several books into Beginner's Guide to Adobe Flash, which itself was for Flash 8 (2005); some of the other books dealt with Flash MX (2002) and all referred to it as Macromedia Flash, before the rename to Adobe Flash (2007).  Let's ask ourselves how many books "unlikely to ever be updated, confuses search engines" would apply to.  It'd make a better topic for a general forum, but this is what comes to my mind regarding this nomination.  In this particular case, the only significant contributor has requested deletion, so I personally would have honored the speedy deletion request. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Look closer. The only page where Weavejester is the only significant contributor is Compojure/Dependencies. so Darklama's call was correct. --Swift (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment People seem to forget or overlook that not everyone can buy a new computer annually or afford to get the latest release of software programs. How is not keeping updated with the latest version of software programs a problem? I can imagine people will still find a use for books that talk about an older release. Wikibooks isn't paper so books can sit idle until someone comes along to update or improve on them. I've been inclined not to honor deletions like this where people decided to continue the work elsewhere and there can potentially be useful work here still. IMO failure to keep up isn't a reason to delete. --dark lama  04:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The existing deletion policy doesn't provide any context for the creator/contributor asking for a deletion but states that as valid basis for speedy deletion. My opinion is that only the request of the contributor wouldn't justify the deletion of any usable content and so seems QuiteUnusual (and Swift raises the issue that this isn't even an exact fact). But Swift argumentation for deletion is based on what he sees as future expectation for evolution, on the other hand Adrignola experience (and my own) seems to indicate that even abandoned stubs can be turned into useful projects, to that point even the rational for the requested speedy seems strange and a weak reason to provide the deletion, should we act to promote another projects or is our first duty to benefit Wikibooks? What about the license of the "new" content ?
 * I'm willing to change my opinion if stronger argumentation is put forward or a greater assurance is given that the new location will keep the content free, I wouldn't mind at all that a link to the new location would be used with some visibility but carefully constructed not to redirect contributors (something similar to what I've done when fixing the Slackersbible). At this moment I prefer to keep the free stub... --Panic (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment. I'm not supporting deletion, I just saw the RFD tag had been placed on the book following the declined speedy without creating an entry here. I put the RFD discussion here purely as an "administrative tidy up", not because I support the deletion. QU TalkQu 22:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. While from a superficial point of view the objections raised by Weavejester make sense this request sounds too much like a mere claim of ownership. There is no reason not to believe in the future someone else could build upon the existing pages and update the book, particularly if the Compojure community grows. In particular, comparing the code examples in the book and on the official site reveals that one year certainly was not enough to make all information useless (for instance, the syntax wasn't re-elaborated from scratch). By the way, "confusing search engines" is not a good argument. If the book is really too outdated to be useful people will stop linking to it and Google ratings will gradually drop. And finally, if there were worries about the situation mentioned in the post linked by Swift it wouldn't cost much to modify the offending page so that it provides links to where to read updated installation instructions - probably it would take about the same time it took to file speedy del and RfD requests... --Duplode (talk) 22:51, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S.: Some good soul just did exactly that :) --Duplode (talk) 00:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment. My aim is not to claim ownership over the content, but to remove a resource that is frequently a source of confusion. Wikibooks tend to rate quite highly on search engines; not necessarily because many people link to the specific book, but because Wikibooks is a highly linked-to site in general. So even if there were no direct links to the Compojure wikibook, it would still be ranked highly by search engines. Because of this, I tend to get a fair few questions on why the steps in the Compojure wikibook don't work, and I have to explain that the wikibook is considerably out of date and shouldn't be used as a reference. Now, I could slap out-of-date notices on all the pages, and link back to up-to-date documentation, but given that no-one is interested in keeping it updated, is there any point to keeping it around? It's conceivable that someone might take up the task in future, but as every page of the wikibook is thoroughly obsolete, they'd have to rewrite all the pages anyway: it would be far simpler for our hypothetical maintainer to start from scratch. This is my reasoning behind requesting that the book be deleted. -- Weavejester 01:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this is a frequent source of confusion. Surely people would be just as confused reading a hard copy or printed book about an older version of the software when a newer version of the software is installed on their computer? How is this failure to not use the right book for the right version of the software our problem or even your problem? How about adding this sort of confused question to some sort of FAQ document on your website? You could for example add "Q: Why Does X, Y, or Z not work for me? A: Make sure you are using the correct software version. The interface changed between 1.0-blah and 1.2-blah." --dark lama  12:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Printed books are typically written about stable software. In this case, the Compojure wikibook partially documents an early, pre-alpha version that bears little resemblance to the current releases. If the wikibook detailed anything that was still used, I'd recommend keeping the page. -- WeaveJester 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep per above, perhaps rename to remind readers that it's about the old version. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep: To extend upon my previous comments, which are along this vein... This is a fundamental misunderstanding with what Wikibooks is, in that it is not a web host; contributing here releases content under a license that permits redistribution of the material, with no retraction of that.  If Wikibooks comes up third in the results (pretty good for Wikibooks competing with Wikipedia), update the documentation here or make the site's documentation rank higher than Wikibooks.  In no other situation would one have any hopes of shutting down one's competitors in the search engine results page.  Following the link above, I get this page on contributing documentation.  Read through that and see just how inconvenient it is to update it for the average user trying to help out others after discovering a solution to a problem they encountered that wasn't addressed in the documentation.  I personally find this platform inferior to Wikibooks (which does permit review of changes before they are shown to logged-out users).  While this isn't about ownership of content here, is it about control of content elsewhere, given that Weavejester must be asked for permission to update the documentation on compjure.org?  Maybe the users simply prefer our platform instead? -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just to make things clear. Ownership is not the same as control. If a Wikibookian contributes copyrightable content (not all edits are so classified) he owns the content but after licensing it under any of the Wikibooks required licenses he relinquishes any distribution control over those contributions. In addition to this, Wikibooks doesn't permit specific editorial control by any person or subgroups of the project's community. --Panic (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Pertinent observation; even if I used "ownership" in a loose, non-legal sense (to mean content and distribution control) it is worthy to keep things clear. --Duplode (talk) 16:51, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and Versiontag I was pointed here via WB:RR/G; you can read my post there for my general position. Basically a way to make it extremely clear to any viewer that the material applies to a specific version of the software needs to be found and a consensus general guideline would be great to have on top of that. Is there any way to make RevisionReview have multiple stable versions? Failing that perhaps we can set up some kind of template that works like Dwarf Fortress' wiki handles multiple versions (although without using namespaces) . For now at the very least put a notice on all pages summarizing that: 1) These pages represent an old version of the software, 2) Anyone is welcome to contribute material relevant to any version of the software (so long as it's made clear what version the page refers to), and 3) If a page is edited to refer to a new version of the software it should also be edited to reflect that fact. Xerol Oplan (talk) 10:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Well... so long as the wikibook is clearly marked as being out of date, I guess that's fine. My goal was never to remove competing sources of information, nor to subvert anyone's creative output. My only issue it that the wikibook currently contains no relevant or useful information, and in my view would only hinder anyone wishing to maintain an up-to-date Compojure wikibook, as it would be easier for any hypothetical maintainer to start from scratch. That said, I understand that removing information, however obsolete and useless, potentially sets a dangerous precedent, and therefore I withdraw my request for deletion. -- WeaveJester 19:36, 3 June 2010 (UTC)