Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Useless Information

Useless Information
Some of this stuff is patently ridiculous. If someone wants to write a book about urban myths, fine, but don't call them 'facts.'

This isn't a book, and frankly i doubt that half of the "information" here is factually correct. --Whiteknight T C E 15:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well at least I found it interesting, and with some more time it would make a full fledged book. Nobody should dare to remove it.--221.134.144.67 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)--221.134.144.67 10:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep with a bit of organisation this book has potential to be a "usefull" collection of "useless" information. Klingoncowboy4 21:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm with the guy above. This book has a lot of potential (if we can ensure factual information). Sykil 01:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Just corrected the elbow comment, it is quite possible to lick your own elbow! Just very rare!
 * Keep Just needs some development Tom Maioli 15:31, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I fail to see how a meer list of facts, especially facts with no common bond besides the authors considering them "useless", can count as a book! There is no standard for determining what information is useless, and what is useful. Also, there isnt a single "fact" listed on that page that a)doesnt belong better in another book, or b) isnt completely false. the fact about the elephant jumping belongs in an elephant book. The "fact" about licking your own elbow belongs in a human physiology book (if it doesnt belong in the garbage can). A "list of information", regardless of qualifiers used, belongs in wikipedia before it belongs in wikibooks. --Whiteknight T C E 05:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Whitenknight - there are many real world books like this that get sold - especially at Christmas. Just go into any bookstore and you'll find many like this. The reason they sell ? Who knows, I personally suspect that it's because they don't require any effort to pick up and put down. Perfect material for the toliet library. Personally I found the page rather nice and entertaining. Finding some pictures to go with the existing text would make quite a fun, if useless book. Books I own which are similar:
 * The Dalek survival guide - at the end of the day utterly useless
 * You May Not Tie an Alligator to a Fire Hydrant: And Other Really Dumb Laws Both of these books are full of useless "facts" of dubious status. The latter book is especially similar. Maybe those books aren't worthy of "book" status in your opinion, but the fact they sell and sell well implies that many people like this kind of book, so why not keep ?
 * DELETE!!!!!!!!!!!!!You might call this USELESS junk, u could actually save this goody to somewhere better.
 * Possibly merge with The Ultimate Trivia Book. Else, I think delete unless it can be reliable. Gflores 21:30, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The title 'useless' refers to the fact that this information is insufficient to aid you in your career, or something similar. And yes, the only common thing to these facts is that they are 'useless' (in this sense of the word). But wouldn't that be enough to make them into a real book, and hence enough to make them into wikibook?
 * Keep. It's already been mentioned that bookshops are full of books like this. Because it's not your taste in literature isn't justification for throwing out. Personally speaking, I find it 10 times more interesting than some spotty faced teenager's Yet Another Guide to Hacking, which will invariably attract strong support. Again, as already mentioned, this is classic WC Literature. What I would say however, is that it quite obviously needs work. As I see it, it's currently an inspiration to what could be a fun read. Once the list has grown a bit you can start sorting it out. E.g. Sorting facts from urban legend. Perhaps backing up claims (especially the more dubious and less believable) with links to more detailed info might help to add credibility – or at least round the thing off a bit.
 * Merge with The Ultimate Trivia Book. Interesting, but I'm not too sure there's a need for another book when we have that one. Jaxl 02:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, now that The Ultimate Trivia Book is on VFD, just delete this one. Jaxl 22:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The general concensus so far is to keep this book, although in light of recent discussions, I think this ruling needs to be either revisted, or completely overturned. According to What is Wikibooks, wikibooks is a site for textbooks, manuals, and instructional materials. Nowhere is wikibooks labled as being a "repository for nonsense, bullshit, lists, factoids, or jokes." In fact, Currently enforced policy specifically says that pages such as Useless Information are specifically forbidden. Regardless of the outcome of this vote, the book is against policy, and is therefore a candidate for speedy delete, and not even really open to a VfD discussion. I recommend that anybody who wants to reply to this message should read What is Wikibooks, and brush up on current policy. --Whiteknight T C E 03:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The arguments to keep basically boil down to "It's a book.". That's insufficient for Wikibooks.  Wikibooks' remit covers only certain types of books.  Wikibooks is not the place for for works of fiction, for example, nor is it the place for for the first publication of original ideas.  Wikibooks modules are not dictionaries, that being Wiktionary's job, nor books of quotations, that being Wikiquote's job, nor copies of free published texts, that being Wikisource's job.  And, important to this discussion, Wikibooks modules are not encyclopaedias.  That's exactly what this book is:  It's an an encyclopaedia of minor facts, collected solely for their entertainment value.  Wikibooks is not the place for writing an encyclopaedia. The point about "toilet library" also requires addressing.  Wikibooks' remit covers the books that one would expect to find in the non-fiction section of a university bookshop.  (Indeed, one could think of Wikibooks as "Wikiversity's free bookshop".)  One would expect to find CliffsNotes such as Angels and Demons and the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter in the English Literature non-fiction section of such a bookshop.  One would expect to find reference books such as the Guide to UNIX in the Computing non-fiction section of such a bookshop.  One would expect to find the Cookbook in the Catering non-fiction section of such a bookshop.  One would expect to find works ranging from car manuals in an Automotive Engineering section to books of practical experiments in a Science Education section.  However, one would expect to find "toilet reading" in the Humour section.  It is entertainment, not instruction or education. Finally: Any book that labels its content as "useless" is pretty much declaring itself outright to fall outside of the "instructional and educational" remit of Wikibooks. Delete. Uncle G 12:53, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would vote Keep (I have no problems with the accuracy of the information) but then I remembered WB:WIW: Wikibooks is not a macropedia. A book that only collects random facts is not an instructional book. See also my Delete vote for the Ultimate Trivia book, farther down on this page. --Kernigh 22:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not a textbook. Mikkalai 18:25, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Deleted. This book was against policy. We had the warning up for a sufficient time, and hopefully the authors saved the information if it was worth keeping (which i doubt). I will archive this discussion in a week. --Whiteknight T C E 06:41, 24 November 2005 (UTC)