Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Technical Analysis

Technical Analysis
Very little content, untouched since September 2005, very specific topic- stock market technical analysis. We don't need this- delete. DettoAltrimenti 05:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm changing my vote to keep, considering some of the arguments that have been made here, and the impassioned defense of this book by certain users. I will cast a blind warning however, that keeping around large amounts of stubs and garbage that "might get picked up" in the future is a precarious practice: If newcomers to our project see all the garbage that we have lying around, they will be inclined to think that our project contains no gems at all! A million half-baked stubs with no currently active contributors will not produce more then a handful of good, active books in the future. Creating and maintaining an entire book is a much bigger task then it is to create and maintain an entire wikipedia artical. The task is more daunting and overwhelming then most people understand. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. - I believe the subject can be made into a textbook and the current attempt has a good enough first outline. If Wikipedia had deleted stubs of specific topics and only kept well-written articles on general topics, it never would have gotten to where it is today. The Wiki process is one of gradual addition and revision. Granted, this is a lot harder to do with textbooks, but I don't think we should be deleting books on legitimate topics of study. I also don't think this should be given a prominent position on a bookshelf either. Our focus should be on general topics. --hagindaz 22:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This book is poorly named, people looking for information on the subject of the stock market are not going to do a search for "Technical Analysis". If we even want to dream about keeping this book, therefore, we should rename it to something better such as "Stock Market Analysis" or something similarly descriptive. Also, wikipedia has much bigger numbers then wikibooks has, and we can't rely on newcomers to come in and fix up all our garbage into something good. This book does have an outline in place, but is it a good enough outline that future contributors will be able to contribute to it effectively? I don't think so. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:12, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Wikibooks going to stay this size forever? If that's the case, we should just give up now, because not one book will ever reach the quality of a professional equivalent (if we rely only on volunteers). If we assume that Wikibooks is going to grow to Wikipedia's size and become a professional resource, it would not be in our best interest to continually delete stubs. I have marked dozens of "books" for speedy deletion, but to me, this book passes both the subject test and the content test. I agree with the rename, however. --hagindaz 23:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Is wikibooks going to stay this size forever? I don't know, but it might. Either way, even if we get larger, we still can't sit around and just hope that somebody else will fix our problems for us. Unless a book is specifically set up to be broad and open-ended, we can't assume that anybody else will be able to follow the line of thought of the original contributor, especially if the original contributor of a given book is no longer active here. If we delete stubs, we are allowing future contributors to start over with a blank slate, and hopefully create books that are better able to be contributed to. This book, as far as i can tell, is not set up in such a way that it can be easily contributed to by new users. This book is going to need alot of work to become more user-friendly, and I dont know about you, but i'm not able nor willing to do that work. Unless somebody specifically steps up here and proclaims that they are willing to fix this book up, then I have to assume that nobody ever will. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I don't see it as a problem, and don't believe the existence of the book hurts Wikibooks. Usable content is already there, and the subject isn't arcane or obscure, as the Wikipedia article of the same name is actively updated and several books exist on the subject. I also disagree that starting from scratch is easier in this case, unless a user copies the contents out of an existing book on the subject. I do think that users should be encouraged to reorganize the book, which is what I tried to do with book stub. I share your beliefs when the subject is obscure or when there is no content, but I don't think that is the case for this book. --hagindaz 03:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No comment regarding deletion, but I don't think the name needs changing. Technical analysis is a fairly well known term.
 * Delete Quite old and looks like a dead project. Although it is a great thing to let subject matters develop and not just wipe out every stub in the namespace, this looks like one person's work that doesn't wish to add to it anymore. It looks pretty specific to pick up on. -Matt 02:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe this book will be picked up sooner than many other projects once Wikibooks becomes more textbook-focused. Although I could be wrong. --hagindaz 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment Since the Wikipedia article is relatively active, perhaps we should ask Wikipedians whether they are interested in contributing on the article's talk page. Would that be acceptable, or would Wikipedia consider it spam? --hagindaz 03:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Keep it please. Stubs have a habit of devloping. I started one 5 years ago that has finally become worthwhile today. I was surprised but it goes to show that every topic has to start somewhere.

Kept. 1 vote to delete, 2 votes to keep, no new votes in nearly a month. We could advertise this one on wikipedia if you want, with a wikibooks template link or something. I don't know how much good it will do, but that's just me being pessimistic. I'll archive this discussion in a week or two. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)