Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Medical Equipment/Peak Flow Meter

Medical Equipment/Peak Flow Meter
A bit too Wikipedia-ish. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep That's because it was transwikied from Wikipedia (Transwiki:Peak flow meter). Just needs some work. Better to have poorly formatted information than none at all. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:21, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * But that Medical Equipment book doesn't even exist. It contains only Transwiki:Automated external defibrillator and this page. Does that make it qualify for deletion? If there is a book about asthma though it could be moved there. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 12:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that. If someone does need information on that then, they can ask for an import from Wikipedia from the current version. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:10, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

--Duplode (talk) 13:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There are actually quite a few pages in the Transwiki namespace that had been requested years ago but were never used. The thing is, if someone did want to use them, they'd likely want a reimport anyways to get the most recent corrections made at Wikipedia. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:26, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is one section in our version of the page that was deemed out of scope at WP. See w:Talk:Peak_flow_meter. In a way this situation is very similar to the "History of Edmeston" above (except that there is less content and much less duplicated content). --Duplode (talk) 13:45, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I came across this page when I did my big sweep of all pages to find books that lacked alphabetical tags. It is still on a list on my user page with some other pages that appear to be part of books, but the books do not exist. The page still exists on wikipedia, the reason it was transwikied here all those years ago was to preserve the section on usage. This section has never re-appeared on wikipedia. In the current case this is really about a paragraph, and maybe doesn't represent a lot of work? I don't know. I only mention it because this idea might apply to other transwikied pages. They may contain sections/information that was later taken out of the wikipedia page, even though the corresponding wikipedia pages have sinced continued to develop to much better encyclopedia articles. Thenub314 (talk) 13:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally would not want Wikibooks to become a repository for content Wikipedia doesn't want, even if it's not textbook material. That's why I haven't been handling most of the "copy to wikibooks" tagged articles at Wikipedia, as they seem to be tagged in the sense of "let's push this over to Wikibooks", similar to sweeping dirt under the rug. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:41, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * To Duplode: Yes it violates w:WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as well as some others in w:WP:NOT. However, does that mean it has to come to Wikibooks? Like Adrignola said, doing so is like (oh well, I'll use a Chinese phrase) sweeping your snow to your neighbour's house. That's not good at all; in fact, I doubt if those who tagged for Wikibooks transwiki articles know the project scope of WB. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 00:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd argue the violation at WP was more specific, namely w:WP:NOTMANUAL. It costs nothing to note that w:WP:NOTTEXTBOOK points to the same policy item, and that WB:WIW does include manuals in project scope. That observation being made, I must concede I did not consider the point that, ideally, editors should only request WP>>WB transferences if they have some plan on what to do with the imported pages. As the chances of a reasonable book/manual/guide on "Medical Equipment" blossoming out of this single section are indeed very small, maybe the dirt/rug and snow/frontyard considerations provide grounds for deletion in this case. Straying a bit away from the immediate subject, however, this line of reasoning leads me to another thought: should we apply the same principles next time any of us casually suggests a Transwiki to Wikiversity as a RfD outcome? --Duplode (talk) 02:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mind starting automated RfD on pages that are moved from Wikipedia, that in themselves seem not to be fit to be a stub for future evolution here (it would provide some more visibility to that content). Wikipedia should preserve valid content, as we do, when we move content that seems to be in line with the scope of other projects (like Wikiversity). It is up to the destination project to see if the content is usable or not at the destination.  --Panic (talk) 04:35, 16 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Not an exact copy of the original material, valid project regarding WIW definition. I would like a reference to the original source material at Wikisource to be added (and vice versa). --Panic (talk) 04:38, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Might make me sound stupid, but what do you mean by 'I would like a reference to the original source material at Wikisource to be added'? Also, if this is kept, it should be moved, as there is no medical equipment book. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 04:42, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Posted this on the wrong thread. It was meant for the active thread above, sorry...  --Panic (talk) 19:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

After some thought I have decided that the page that is written is not suitable as neither a book nor a manual. The page was transwikied here in order to save the information about its useage, but the information given on this page is known to anyone familiar with the device, and can readily be found by a google search. Given the existing page on wikipedia, it would be easier to write a better quality page from a fresh transwiki, plus a few sentences. Provided of course at some point there is a book on medical equipment, and this device falls under its scope. Thenub314 (talk) 13:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Switched my position to Delete after considering the arguments posted here and the fact that this single page is probably not a valid or useful stub to "Medical Equipment" --Duplode (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2010 (UTC)