Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/R Programming/Q&A

R Programming/Q&A
Speedy Delete: Unmaintained; Empty; see Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A & Requests for deletion/Chess/Q&A --16:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)33rogers (talk)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Whether it's unmaintained is irrelevant. Even though it were empty (which it's not) the creator (User:PAC who has several hundred edits to R Programming and continues to contribute under the username User:PAC2) saw it as useful. Since the book is still active, I suggest taking this up with the book contributors first. --Swift (talk) 00:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete as the page creator and major book contributor agrees. --Swift (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I quote the User PAC here from the talk page:

== Speedy deletion ==

I agree with the speedy deletion of this page

PAC2 (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

There is already consensus that Wikipedia's Reference desk is the correct place for asking questions.

My favorite quote from the last discussion I mean, whoever saw books automatically answering people's questions! by Kayau.

--33rogers (talk) 03:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering this message written a couple hours ago it can only be assumed that Swift had not seen the "I agree" message from PAC2 and therefore set out to ask for his input, in perfectly good faith. No need to make a war about that... --Duplode (talk) 04:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Its hard to assume good faith, as it seemed to me Swift did not read Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A before opposing on all Q&A. Regardless, I will Take a break from editing Wikibooks:Requests_for_deletion for a few days. As this will be my last message here, WB:RFD, for a few days, I will take the opportunity to apologize to Swift, for any misgivings that may be construed. --33rogers (talk) 05:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 33rogers, you're misunderstanding the point of WB:AGF. The idea is to go beyond what seems to you and assume good faith regardless. The reason for this is that based on limited information we often draw false conclusions regarding the intent of others. In some cases emotions even lead us astray and skew our rationality.
 * The trigger seems to be that you believe that I hadn't read the discussion on Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A before taking part in the discussion. The logical flaw in that conclusion appears to be that you believe one can only come from that discussion with one view. You furthermore make the mistaken assumption that a (prematurely closed) discussion on the deletion of a single page somehow demonstrates community consensus on where to ask questions (whether this applies only to WikiMedia projects or the wider Internet community is unclear). Quite on the contrary, there are comments noting both that these are well within scope (Adrignola) and potentially useful (Panic2k4).
 * You then seem to argue that I had ignored the note on the talk page from the user and my note on User talk:PAC2 somehow supports your view that I was not acting in good faith. At this point you're not making any sense at all.
 * "[...] I will take the opportunity to apologize to Swift, for any misgivings that may be construed." After your thinly veiled allegation of bad faith, don't cut your break short on my account. --Swift (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, I agree with the deletion of the page R Programming/Q&A. PAC2 (talk) 08:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy delete requested by creator who is also the only notable contributor. If you don't count the person who asked a question. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment As far as I'm concerned, this now satisfies the WB:SPEEDY criteria and can be deleted without further delay but will leave that up to a less involved admin. --Swift (talk) 13:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed and done. Thenub314 (talk) 16:08, 19 May 2010 (UTC)