Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time
''The following discussion has concluded.  Please begin any new discussion  on the appropriate page.'' Closed as delete per concerns raised. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 01:11, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

What about this one? Kayau (talk) 13:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Empty stub consistently of only headings. A 2008 class project that never got off the ground. --dark lama  14:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I had nominated a book in the past for speedy deletion on the grounds of being an old class project, but you had refactored it to remove references to the class project. I had made edits to the book referenced by this nomination before it was nominated in the same line, to remove references to the project, categorize it so it would be seen, and set it up for contributions from anyone.  I'm not opposed to deletion, but I would like to see more consistency in what is grounds for deletion. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * In this case I think there is no meaningful content and no work would be lost by its deletion. I think anyone who wants to do an annotation of the book could easily recreate the headings if they wanted to use a similar structure. I think the page is more likely to discourage rather then encourage contributions because of the nature of the intended work, its narrow focus, and there is nothing really to work with. --dark lama  21:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * This is very similar to Frankenstein being voted on above, it consists simply of an outline of sections the authors wished existed. I am not sure if Frankenstein started out as a class project.  This book raises the question again should long term stub-ness be grounds for deletion. Thenub314 (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I think the larger question is what the definition of a stub is. To me a stub would be a page/book with limited content, but content nonetheless. Speedy deletion is possible for "no meaningful content". Are headings meaningful content, or not? There's also the problem that there are so many stubs on Wikibooks in the first place. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Tentatively, at least as a sufficient (if perhaps not necessary) criterion, how about this:
 * If the page/book is abandoned and would not save conceptual effort for someone considering adopting it rather than starting from scratch, then there is no meaningful content.
 * I specify conceptual effort because purely mechanical overhead like page creation shouldn't count; when technical overhead becomes sophisticated enough it crosses over from "pure mechanics" to conceptual organization, and would then count as meaningful content. The criterion may be too subjective to use safely in most cases for true speedy deletion (i.e., without discussion), but at least it provides a framework for deliberation.  In my judgment, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time fails this criterion, so
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Unlike Frankenstein, this page is not an outline of a book, but rather a empty Wikipedia article. I've seen articles on Wikipedia with blank sections. So, in my opinion as a newbie here, I think it's either delete or transwiki (although I suppose there is already such an article on Wikipedia, so delete is the most likely.) Kayau (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Six headings detailing the portions of a novel that would necessarily be part of any analysis anyone would create don't stand out to me as being worth keeping or transwikiing.-- Adrignola talk contribs 01:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)