Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Hexpixel Code

==Hexpixel Code==

If you check its creator's userpage, it basically says that he made up "Hexpixel code" himself. Technically OR. A Google search reveals the only existence of "Hexpixel code" is on Wikibooks, so it's probably not real. Although it looks like a real thing, this book is basically a "toy" exercise, not an actual computer tool. It's not a computer language in any sense, it's just a fictional image format. Mr. NMC (talk ) 01:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol redirect vote.svg|15px]] Transwiki to Wikiversity. I strongly object with the proposing user defining another Wikibookian constructive work as BS (don't know if NMC was pressed on time to find a better wording but a VFD is a high visibility discussion, making this type of criticism an highly effective way of alienating people from the project). The author did not misrepresent the issue and seems to be only in fault regarding to the best place to hosts his creation. There is no mentioning of programing at all on the text, it describes a code and the process of it for the encoding of image data. I agree that the content seems to be OR. The book was last active in April 2009 so a reshaping or constructive criticism may still address any of the issues. I only see a future for it on the project if turned into a practical example of some sort. --Panic (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the wording, changed. (The book was categorized under "Assembly Language", btw.) -- Mr. NMC (talk ) 20:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a bad job explaining myself. Let me retry:  the book explains a "language" for encoding an image.  However, there is no software that actually uses that code.  It's made up, is what I meant to say.  It's as if someone made up their own language, but nobody else speaks it, and then wrote a Wikibook about it.  It has no practical/educational value.  Also, the book does misrepresent itself, because it implies that Hexpixel Code is a usable image format, even though there is no software that uses it. -- Mr. NMC (talk ) 20:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We already agreed in the OR issue (and I think your are proposing the deletion of the content) but I still don't think it does "misrepresent itself" (by error or intention) since the book is about a practical example on using a particular constructed code, there is no particular need to have it be implemented in a program (it could be, but not as a requirement to make the construct valid), the viability of the concept seems to be "proven" (didn't check it) on the text by way of a practical example, it is NPOV, since it doesn't try to sell you the format. It is only a very simple demonstration (it only does the encoding) presumably the decoding would be the reversal of the steps in a way a non programmer can fallow it.
 * The problem is that by itself it isn't right for Wikibooks (but would be acceptable if used to demonstrate a programming language implementing the same steps as part of another book, as programming exercise) or even as part of a book covering image formats or something that runs parallel to the text, like turning it an easy to fallow demonstration of an algorithm. --Panic (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is that the book is essentially fiction. There is no such thing as Hexpixel code, except for within this book.  As shown by the very first sentence of the book, its purpose it to teach the reader how to use Hexpixel Code (something that doesn't exist).  What if I made up my own variation of Pig Latin that I spoke with my friends, and then I made a wikibook for it?  It would get deleted.
 * I don't wish to drag this out or turn this into a battle, so I'm not going to reply again. Other people can decide. --Mr. NMC (talk ) 01:06, 26 May 2009 (UTC)