Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/How To Ride The Bus For Free

How To Ride The Bus For Free
The is a new page that has been nominated by user:Derbeth for speedy deletion. His explanation was that he find it to be "useless." This is a subjective qualifier and should not be used for speedy deletion. Secondly I think his reasoning is illogical. Perhaps someone could give this article some loving attention or explain and clarify the issue. --72.57.8.215 22:49, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per above critical comment. --72.57.8.215 23:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC) unregistered users cannot vote
 * I would like to point out here that it is policy to wait several weeks before nominating an article for deletion and this process was brough up by me because user:derbeth nominated the article for SPEEDY deletion. On top of that I am a new user and it is suggested that such article wait even up to a month or more. user:derbeth has decided to remove the speedy delete and this demonstrates that this article no longer needs to be listed here (as per the original request that I posted here). As per deletion policy this discussion should be postponed for the next month. Hence my vote, in one month from now will have some meaning --72.57.8.215 00:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. I think such material is rubbish and useless for normal people. The author writes at the beginning that readers should obey law, but in fact the whole articles is instruction how to break law and no disclaimer can change it. Wikibooks is collection of open-content textbooks, not random pieces of rubbish. We don't have to include anything, especially articles like this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Derbeth (talk • contribs) 23:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This book has usefull information on how to also avoid breaking the law! --72.57.8.215 00:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hypothetically, should a book on how to make a bomb be excluded? --72.57.8.215 00:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not just about breaking the law it's about bieng socially irresponsible. Where the elected powers are trying to provide a service to the communiuty, this book is encouraging people to go against this, and if enough people follow it, will end up with higher security on buses, more wait time and less nice services like buses bieng provided. As a benevolent government agent, why do I want to keep helping people, who just want to rip off the community. Delete this socially irresponsible information. -- [User:matiu]
 * Added vfd tag. --Kernigh 00:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Though there is a section on how to forge a bus transfer (and we might debate how to handle that), this page also has some other tactics, such as "how to beg people for bus fare". --Kernigh 01:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Kernigh, I think we should be a serious project. Do you want Wikibooks to be filled with such brilliant hints like "how to beg people for bus fare"? Maybe also "how to get into a lift" or "how to drink at parties to avoid becoming drunk"? There are lots of possibilities. Many people don't take us serious because of such rubbish materials and if we don't stop accepting what is in fact immature and silly, people would laught at us. And, of course, I don't think we should allow any book on how to make bomb, regardless it is legal or not and how long its diclaimer is. We have to make some selection to maintain a minimal level of quality. If you want to make books like avoid paying for bus or how to make a bomb, look for another host. --Derbeth talk 07:35, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Who is to decide this "minimum level of quality" and by what criteria can we get rid of stuff like this? Advocacy to commit crimes IMHO is a different issue than what this book module brings up.  I don't think books like this should be main page stuff, and if it wins Book of the Month I would just cry my heart out, but perhaps it would be better to make a "sandbox" for stuff like this for those individuals who want to make books of this nature.  As long as it is factual and otherwise doesn't violate Wikibooks policies (like violating copyright), I consider pages like this to be harmless.  The real question here is how to distinguish from real "How to" books like "How to build a deck" from silly stuff like this.  --Rob Horning 15:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is not a free host for writing anything, so I'm surprised you are talking about making a "sandbox" here, Rob. There are many wikis and we should not be the one who gives place for authors with odd ideas. Things like this are removed from Wikipedia immediately. I think we are too tollerant and sometimes forget what Wikibooks is for. I'm sure Karl Wick wasn't thinking of "How to ride the bus for free" articles when he proposed creating this project. --Derbeth talk 16:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This response still doesn't answer one of two questions: 1) What policy does this module violate?  2) If it doesn't violate any current policy (even proposed) what would be a reasonable new policy to exclude content of this nature that is general and not "we can't have a textbook titled How To Ride The Bus For Free"?  Make this a policy we can also all agree on as a Wikibooks community.  Simply saying it is trash is not enough.  This module is more than mere random gibberish, nor is it a personal soapbox.  I will grant that this is marginal content, however, and certainly pushes the boundary of what is acceptable content.  The question here is what side of that line do we want to draw that line of acceptable content in regards to this book.  --Rob Horning 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * So what they are saying is that wikibooks essentially copies existings books? Sort of a funny twist on allowing people to break the law. Isn't it just ironic how close these two subjects are! This material seems to conform to a textbook. It the 101 on how to get to school. It the first thing you need to go to class. When you open up your school agenda, one of the first of pages is usualy how to ride the bus in your area. Maybe that should be the title how to ride the bus. Sub-chapter -how to ride the bus for freeI also took a look at one article from uncyclopedia and well... it's exatly that... no cited sources. This book will incorperate profesional expert opinions (But you can't tell because this entire process is out-of-process and out of good taste. As per procedures... we are supposed to wait one week before posting here... this is vandalism... it can be removed (no matter how sound any arguments are) (Bring it up in a a couple week from now) --72.57.8.215 20:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Generally Derbeth is a bit more gentle in regards to new users, and as an admin he should know better than to bite newcommers. Since he classified it as a speedy delete candidate, I'm leaving it up to him to explain his reasoning.  He certainly has expressed some reasoning as noted from the message above, but I am disagreeing with that reasoning.  His and mine are just two voices, however, and others can express their opinions.  If you want to see this book be considered "legitimate", adding citations is going to be for your benefit.  The Uncyclopedia, you should note, is a parody site and deliberately goes out of their way to make either bogus citations or have none at all.  I wouldn't use that as a standard for anything taken seriously. BTW, while not strictly necessary, it give a little more legitimacy if you register an account on this project and participating in the discussions.  That also helps if you have rotating IP addresses you are working on or decide to log in from different computers.--Rob Horning 22:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob asked what policy (current or what might reasonably be proposed) is violated here. As I read WB:DP, a book does not have to violate policy to be worthy of deletion via VfD.  WB:DP includes this: "In general, delete pages that simply will never become instructional resource modules, for example, modules that represent completely idiosyncratic non-topics ("Teaching 100 monkeys to type the works of Shakespeare"), etc."  Anything that would be better placed on  (as is the case with How To Ride The Bus For Free) certainly gets covered by that.  Besides, it probably counts as primary research and certainly is not verifiable without primary research.  Rob also asked who is to decide the minumum level of quality.  We (the Wikibook community) are.  I guess I would ask Rob what his limit on the inane would be?  "How to Pick Your Nose"?  "How to Poop"?  At least with the latter, one can (unlike How To Ride The Bus For Free) a cite source:  Deuteronomy 23.13. --JMRyan 10:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No, "How to Poop" may be a little bit too much, but it helps quite a bit if you can point to a specific policy as a part of your argument to remove content. BTW, I might consider renaming a module of "How to Poop" to perhaps Human Digestive Systems and go into the details of how food is broken down and consumed through the digestive trac, including the lower intestines.  Perhaps something like that needs to happen with this module, with a "hijacking" from being silly to something that is much more serious about what to do when you need emergency transportation and you are without funds.  This whole discussion reminds me of Making an Island VfD that came up earlier.  --Rob Horning 15:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, not a textbook, and&mdash;I'm sorry&mdash;just plain silly.  Perhaps we could transwiki it to the ?  --JMRyan 05:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: The Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 2.0 license of Uncyclopedia is not compatible with our GNU Free Documentation License; thus we cannot transwiki a page there without permission of all copyright holders of that page. --Kernigh 01:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually. I read through the definition of what wikibooks is and is not. 1) You fail to prove that this is original research however, 2) You raise a good concern about this being a textbook. I will hence concentrate on #2. According to WB:WIW "A textbook is a book which is actually usable in an existing class." The important part to look at is "class". What definition do we mean. It is my belief that what was meant by class was the first definition found on wiktionary; #A group, collection, category or set sharing characteristics or attributes. The now called book "How to ride the bus" meets these definitions. It fits within the approved collection or category called category:How-Tos. It also fits within the category category:Humor but is now being sent into the category Transport. Be do to it's infancy it is obviously hard to tell where it may go. But does all this really mater. This entire process is out of process. And Though this comment seems good to me it's totally irrelevant because according to WP:DP "If, and only if a page has existed on the system for more than one week, you may add a new section to the end of Requests for deletion, using the unwanted page's name as a title, so that other Wikibookians can have a chance to argue for or against the removal of the page." Oh!  Wait the name has been change.  Oh! Darn. I sure hope an administrator will notice sometime soon. Perhaps then he can erase this entire discusion (actually we might as well let it go... just to show how stupid it is and how easy it is for someone to break the rules because he "simply doesn't like it.")(maybe then we'll be able to make a book called "How to break wikibook rules"... hummm... maybe... but it maybe hard to do without original research? Or would it?) --72.57.8.2I5 06:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree, this material should not be here.--Konstable 08:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per refutation from Rob Horning --FR Soliloquy 23:29, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Special:Contributions/FR Soliloquy: this vote is the user's second edit. --Kernigh 01:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I promise you it is not my sock puppet. This is an independent contributor voicing his own opinion.  --Rob Horning 05:14, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Rob, no matter how strongly one might disagree with you, nobody who's been around these parts for a while could imagine you creating sock puppets. You may be a (IIRC, self-described) rabid inclusionist, but a creator of sock puppets?  It just doesn't compute.  My guess (and it's admittedly only a guess) is that 72.57.8.215 took your advice and registered an account.  If my guess is correct, then I wouldn't count him as either an independent vote or a sock puppet.  --JMRyan 10:23, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way, we recently managed to change rules of BOTM vote to exclude users with minimal number of edits. Perhaps we should make such limit here, for example equal to 20 or 50 edits. --Derbeth talk 11:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Useless trash Gerard Foley 11:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I've gone over the past discussion and it seems to be more red-taping by the editor in an effort to save the work than anything else. The important thing I saw was how to judge "taste" with respect to books. Maybe we should actually create a guideline on what's considered appropriate here. We are of course supposed to be a free and open textbook system, but some book topics can be just silly and over the line of helpful and more for humor. Making an Island had real applicable value whereas this book seems to promote deceit and bad ethics. I think we could hold our standards a little higher to keep out garbage yet not restrict editors' rights. -Matt 18:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see anything humorous in this article anymore than a book on how to have anal sex, or how to prevent post surgical infections after a hysterectomy. Please, give an example of why Making an Island would be considered useful? Personally I would answer if someone finds the article useful then it probably is. I find that the now called article "How To Ride The Bus" is useful. It fabulous for travelers. It is great fork from the article in wikipedia OC Transpo. This book promotes a "How to" instructional guide to ride the bus. But this is obviously hard to see for anyone that has his head stuck so far up his ass he can only see the mathematical equations and psychological influences that are quoted from rare and renown experts. Unlike the many experts that exist for this article. There is so much information on this article that is overwhelming our sense and we can't even see a clear picture. One section happens to be on ridding it for free. So what?  There are many fabulous hits on Google search for Hot To Ride The Bus. There are even free videos and thousands of cities that have various ways on how to ride a bus. There is even some cities... if you read carefully this is already in the book, that offer free bus rides. Wouldn't you like to know the if you went to Seattle you could ride the bus for free from 9h00 a.m. to 6h00 p.m.  Or if you move to another city and are a parent of 3 to 4 children you can ride the bus for free. I must admit as the primary creator of this article. Simply looking at the first name "how to ride the bus for free" my intentions where to elaborate a list of illegal activities. But the more I actually read into the subject the more morale and ethical is appears to be. Negativity just seems to stench the air around here because of the way the article was started, because of my frustration toward this entire ludicrous and out-of process deletion and because of the lack of respect that was demonstrated when I first got here. That's right. Where was the respect when I got here. Do you expect me to be nice now and follow WB:NPA. I've only been at wikibooks for a few days. To be honest user Derbeth is evil. Not pure evil though because he could have simply deleted it. But Evil. User Derbeth has violated WB:DP. He has forced a speedy delete on the article How To Ride The Bus to turn into a a VFD. In turn because of the way wikibooks is set-up, unavoidably, the article was sent to WB:VFD. However according WB:DP no article should be nominated for vfd for at least 1 week. WB:DP suggests, for new users, such as me, we should wait up to a month before nominating a VFD. I made a vote. And now he says it doesn't count. How the heck am I supposed to vote? The worst thing is. He made me, now a new user, do his dirty work. Now he doesn' even have the guts to stand up and say that the entire process is out of process (as per WB:DP). Think about it. I do 4 to 5 edits to a new article that I created and he is nominating it for a speedy delete. You know, that I myself have been raising the tone recently, it would be nice for sake of tension sake and to ease the situation, if I received an apology. I see like this: this must be either a pure miss-understanding on my behalf or a bad wikibook policy incident that requires re-writing or just evilness from non-complacent users, such as derbeth (the antagonist of this situation) or anyone that votes anymore, to encourage wikibook policy violations. But, I'm going to shut up now because, actually now that I think about it... I'm slowly changing my mind and agreeing with you. Perhaps it is a good idea to have it all deleted. I can then publish the book myself. Yah!  Actually... Now that I think about it...  I think all of this is a copyright violation and was submitted copyrighted work without my permission. I was sick the last few days and I have been taking some strong medication that my doctor prescribed for the pneumonia of mine. I would have never really in my conscious mind given permission for this to be published. ( soliloquy... I'll be publishing this book and making some serious coin soon.) Oh! Thank you wikibooks... but I figured out that free stuff really ain't for me...  well actually you, from me... and before I say anything else. Bye Bye for now! --72.57.8.2I5 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that I am not sure if registered user User:72.57.8.2I5 (with a capital letter I (eye) ) is the same as IP address User:72.57.8.215 (with a numeral 1 (one)). We could use CheckUser to check. However, enough other users (not including myself) have voted to delete this book so a check might not be necessary. --Kernigh 06:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This vote may not be valid as I havn't edited in a long, long time, but I think it should be kept. 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

-- Neutral Early on (checking early edit history) I'd have to say speedy delete. But now, this looks as if it may have some potential. I'd like to see where it goes before taking a definitive stance. --Dragontamer 02:32, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. per Derbeth. Kmf164 16:52, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. The same rationale should also apply to Requests for deletion/A guide to cheating during tests and examinations. Kmf164 17:10, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Deleted - especially as it was categorised as "humour"!, Jguk 16:42, 27 March 2006 (UTC)