Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Mathematics Handbook

Mathematics Handbook
Delete This book has profound scoping issues. It attempts to cover everything from introducing addition through calculus, and in the particular case can be viewed as a fork of many existing books. The material that exists is not very well written and inaccurate in places, so it doesn't make sense to merge the material into existing books as it has nothing to add. Thenub314 (talk) 18:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete/Symbol merge vote.svg Merge. This is another low quality/poorly translated book by the same IP user who added several other books with similar quality of content.  The scope of the book is too far-reaching and the content like past books appears to be a rip of content at another language Wikibooks with no attribution.  Merge what is useful into the books with a more narrowly-defined scope and delete anything that is redundant or nonsensical. – Adrignola talk 19:27, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "profound scoping issues"? Some math books cover everything from Addition to Calculus and beyond. I think a book with that scope is fine. Expecting a book to be very well written in slightly over a week is expecting too much. --dark lama  21:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I only meant that I thought the scope was much too far reaching, but I suppose on that point we will have to disagree. I didn't mean to imply that the book should be well written in a single week.  I only meant to explain why I didn't thought a merge was appropriate (as I don't see the existing material adding much to the current books). Thenub314 (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)


 * AGF and wait. I think the IP might come back and explain/alter the scope. Perhaps wait a month or two before considering deletion. Kayau
 * Sluutu contributed November 8th. Sluutu could perhaps be the same IP user. Even if they are not the same person, there was at least someone else also contributing to it. --dark lama  15:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Content minimal and inferior to content we already have.  Has already been here long enough for benefit of the doubt.  If contributor comes back we should direct them to the existing material.  JamesCrook (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I agree that lack of attribution is an issue (even if it is to work by the same author on other Wikis) but perhaps it is better to allow this contributor to create their own books than to add their material to existing books. Recent Runes (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think we can do a lot better than this.--Wisden (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Looks more like musings than than text of any real educational value. Still, I don't see how this is out of scope. I think it could be of use to someone as a handbook; clear and to the point. --Swift (talk) 23:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)