Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Computer Revolution/A Timeline

The Computer Revolution/A Timeline
DELETE: We have enough historical visionaries that paint a picture of the world as if only they had eyes. Textbooks and history is oxymoron reeking of the kabala propaganda machine. History has as many versions as there are eyes and no single vision can said to be right or more wrong. It is only the people with agenda that insist that their version is correct, via the "textbook." The "textbook" is nothing more than a vision of history enforced by gang or "democratic" majority. The entire wikipedia site reeks of the narrow visioned experts of our time and the powerful effects of the modern media on interpretations of events, both seen and unseen, witnessed and rumored, fact and fiction.

DELETE ALL HISTORY "TEXTBOOKS" This unsigned comment is by 67.163.33.24 at 05:02, 05:04, 05:10, 16 November 2005. &lt;-- This user posted out of order.

Opose: True it is not a Textbook and never will be. But then as of the WB:NP it's just a chapter of the The Computer Revolution book. As such the resoning is wrong - as a chapter it is not off topic. --Krischik T 13:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So long as it isn't a stand alone module, then it's fine. Although it should probably provide a prominent backlink to the The Computer Revolution book. Also, this page uses a terrible naming convention, which we should probably change anyway, so long as we are thinking about it. --Whiteknight T C E 14:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed - As I allways say I am in favor of subpages as they create the backlinks automaticly and hence make the chapter charcter clearly visible. --Krischik T 15:40, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. I am glad that we are deleting modules that violate WB:WIW, but I believe that Wikibooks should have history textbooks. Now this is only a timeline and not a textbook, but it is a new module which can become part of a new textbook that I might contribute to. --Kernigh 22:09, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Update Wikipedia has w:Category:Computing timelines. They also have a huge collection of articles at History of computing. I am not sure whether to proceed with a book here at Wikibooks. --Kernigh 02:38, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - This is just an outline for things to come, and as said, this is an appendix to an existing Wikibook, not a stand-alone module. It may need some cleanup, but that is something you can do if you want to.  --Rob Horning 13:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep- a history makes perfect sense as a module fo a computer book.  The page probably should be renamed and moved though --Gabe Sechan 18:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - as an Appendix, it would make an excellent addition, or case-study, for something like History_of_Technology. I strongly disagree with the comment that we should delete all History textbooks: if you did, you would be junking the textbook of the month in April, US History, which the contributors have put a fantastic effort into maintaining. Rather, we should make sure that they stay NPOV (though there may be some merrit in deleting ideologically-biased, or revisionist, history textbooks), and are edited to meet high school or university textbook standards. AmishThrasher 01:00, 17 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Admittedly, without The Computer Revolution, it is not a textbook. Further, The Computer Revolution was created to service the timeline, not not the other way around.  That makes me wonder whether the book is ever really going to go anywhere.  However, the thing to do with a stub like The Computer Revolution that you wonder whether it is really going to go anywhere is to wait and see if it actually goes somewhere.  Maybe we should revisit this in, say, six months?  The reason given for deletion, namely that we should delete all history books, is just bizarre. --JMRyan 21:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Current Concensus is to keep this book, so long as it stays a subsection of The Computer Revolution book. Currently links have been posted between the two, and they appear to be a single book. This discussion will be archived in 1 week. --Whiteknight T C E 13:49, 25 November 2005 (UTC)