Wikibooks talk:Deletion policy

Move to enforced
The vote at vote for deletion policy showed consensus. The discussion of a move to enforced at the staff lounge was unopposed. RobinH 11:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Removing "Blatant vandalism" from SD criteria
Currently we have these two among the criteria for SD:
 * A page with no meaningful content. Always check the history of the page, as this nonsense may have replaced good content. If this is the case, simply revert to the last good version.

and
 * Blatant vandalism. This would be obvious offensive language or completely unrelated content to the Wikibook it is associated with. Make sure that the page that has been vandalized does not have prior history that can simply be reverted, then blank the page and add the deletion tag.

"Meaningful content" includes:
 * Vandalism (including linkspamming)

I think the former criteria sufficiently includes the latter which I propose we remove. --Swift 17:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 *  Agree . The shorter policy pages are the better (in general anyway). --Dragontamer 05:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Vandalism isn't really defined under "Meaningful content" as it is for Blatant vandalism. I think perhaps either the definition of vandalism as defined by the blanant vandalism definition should be combined with vandalism definition under "Meaningful content" or it should be expanded to include an alternative definition of vandalism. Without a vandalism definition it is up to interpretation of what vandalism is and leaving vandalism undefined from this policy may not be a good idea as there seems to be some efforts by other contributors to Wikibooks to try to define other unwanted contents in addition to whats already in this policy. Perhaps we could also change the section name to "No meaningful content"? As it is now the name is misleading when what is pointed out is examples of what is not meaningful content rather then what is meaningful content. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 10:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It's a small change, and while the one might be implied in the definition of the other, I can't see any reason to remove a small amount of text at the expense of removing clarity. Wiki isn't paper, remember, and we can afford to be a little verbose now and again. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:14, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose - As the author who put this phrase into the speedy delete criteria, I wanted to be very plain about the fact that you don't have to hold a VfD over vandalism. There is content that has been added as a deliberately malicious nature sometimes to a page, and an admin should have the authority to get rid of this stuff.  It may be "meaningful content" in some sense of the word, but the person who added it is clearly trying to cause problems for the main contributors of the module or Wikibook.  Yes, this is something that requires good judgement, which is one of the reasons why we get so paranoid about accepting new admins and often turn down requests for adminship.  In most cases the vandalism is so obvious that having a second admin review it is more than sufficient, if there is cause to doubt the actions of a particular admin.  --Rob Horning 08:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Moving Content of books
I take this change chance to ask that when people move text out of books (even if they get deleted) should give the right credits on the destination work as requested by the GFDL. --Panic 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "I take this change to ask..." I don't understand what you've just said. What change? Could you rephrase?


 * Sorry. change -> chance :), besides my normal error level, I have now the flue :)...
 * This refers to (GFDL on 5. COMBINING DOCUMENTS), as I it seems to me that most users that move pages from books to books do that without regards to that stipulation. Another point that should be useful to state on the policy it that even if books are deleted on Wikibook there are other servers that can have the old content replicated. --Panic 23:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that GFDL documents mustn't break the license ... but what does that have to do with Deletion policy? This policy concerns itself with the criteria and process of removing pages; not combining them. A little context to your suggestion would be useful.


 * It relates to Guidelines for admins, it should be added there as a reminder to admins merging content, nothing more.--Panic 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "there are other servers that can have the old content replicated." I don't see any reason whatsoever for including this in the page. If you really think it is important, please start a new section for it.
 * Hope your flue gets better! --Swift 01:21, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Most people may interpret that by a decision to delete here, the content is destroyed it can prove advantageous not only to refer that other systems do mirror the content but that the user is free to copy it elsewhere under the GFDL license, this can ease the affected user disposition regarding a passed decision to delete. --Panic 01:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that sentiment, We should make it more clear that content deleted here, since it is under the GFDL, is free to be copied or transferred to another location. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Vote and changes
Any call for a vote or the approval of this policy must be depend on the approval of What is Wikibooks, this should also be stated on it's text as it may depend on the this other policy. --Panic 16:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This policy has already been approved. --Swift 21:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Well that change is a state of fact, there wouldn't be a need for a formal proposal (on that change) but I came here from a link that stated that it the policy was under discussion... Sorry, but my point remains valid, do you think it changes the actual intention of the policy and a proposal is needed ? --Panic 23:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I dont think this policy needs to be altered or updated unless blatant problems can be found in it (and I can't see any on quick inspection). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This policy has been formally approved for some time, and I was involved with the decision. This is the actual page where the voting took place, and IMHO similar kinds of votes should also happen. All of this said, there is some concern over what was voted on and the current state of this policy. See this diff to compare what has changed from the version that was voted upon. While most of what has been modified is relatively benign and insignificant, there are a few points that did make some major policy changes that have crept in. Those changes IMHO are something that can and should be debated upon. --Rob Horning 08:11, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the Decision making policy precludes the use of large, elaborate voting mechanisms as were used when this policy was accepted. Many of the changes that you point out in that diff link were discussed, either in this talk page, or in other locations before they were enacted. In general, I think a less-formal system is far preferred over all sorts of formal nonsense anyway (special voting pages, etc). Regardless, I can't imagine that we need to put the currently accepted text of this policy to a new vote to confirm it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

To avoid confusing and restatement of the points, the actual policy should be reverted and the now changed text (contested) should be moved to an unstable version of the same policy (I will also add my proposed changes later) and in the talk page should be stated that the text should be analyzed and debated but a formal approval will only be performed after the Decision making policy is closed. Any one disagrees ? --Panic 03:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would disagree, I dont think the text of the page should be reverted unless specific points are challenged. Keep in mind that wikibookians are encouraged to be bold, and many changes, edits, and improvements are instituted by bold wikibookians trying to fix problems without alot of hassle. By all means, create an unstable version if you want (i have some things to add and change as well), but dont revert the current text of the policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yup I do agree with you, but under the be bold if a user should make a substantial change to a policy, the points shouldn't be challenged, the opposing user should revert and state why, if the originator of the change should find that the reversion did in some way reduced the advancement of a point or he wishes to propose that point for adoption then he should make an unstable version to propose the change. On simple terms it is up to the one that wants to push a change to get the trouble of defending it, other Wikibookians should prevent any changes that alters the spirit of the adopted policy on the active policy page. --Panic 05:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Why
Why did Jimbo Wales order the removal of video game guides from WikiBooks? You can reach me on Wikipedia's 100110100; a response there would be greatly appreciated, thanks!70.74.35.252 07:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't so much an order by Jimbo as it was a manifestation of policy. Videogame strategy guides don't qualify as textbooks under the inclusion criteria, although exceptions have been made in the past. Jimbo's statements weren't so much a mandate against videogame guides as they were a reaffirmation of our pre-existing policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I strongly disagree on this point. It was not pre-existing policy, as there was no policy that even governed the concept.  It wasn't even an exception to a particular inclusion policy.  It was a few admins that  took the words of (and IMHO mis-interpreted the suggestion of) Jimbo and did a mass deletion of Wikibooks content.  Jimbo did come swinging onto Wikibooks and said that in his opinion they didn't belong here.  And he tried to give several point that from his perspective, including a violation of the the Wikibooks charter.  But when they were first removed it was in violation of this policy on this page, in both the spirit and the letter here.  And general consensus within the Wikibooks community on this issue was never achieved.  I still don't think it has, other than almost all of the supporters of keeping the video game books have been driven from Wikibooks instead.  --Rob Horning 15:44, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The current text of WB:WIW is essentially the same as it was before Jimbo made his declaration. Some of the vaguarities, especially over the videogame guide issue, are the prime impetus to the new draft of that policy. If you look at the current text of WB:WIW, you will see a number of strong points that can be used to ban videogame strategy guides. Those guides were not banned, as they should have been, both because of rampant inclusionism, and the fact that wikibooks had been used as a dumping ground for lots of inappropriate material early in it's lifetime. The mistakes of the past, while they do form some sort of tradition or inertia, hardly make the fact "not so". Video game guides never really belonged here, nobody ever had the backbone to just kick them out. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The video game books were not things that were "dumped" onto Wikibooks. I could name several items that were dumped here, but that was not among the problems mentioned here.  Jimbo did change WB:WIW spontaneously and without discussion, and furthermore even after he changed the wording there, he didn't really explain what the change really meant or what the implications of that change would have for the project.  It also created a huge firestorm of discussion for trying to "divine" the implications of the policy change, as Jimbo simply didn't say what he really meant other than three particular books had to be deleted.  It was if the policy was to delete those books alone on his authority.  And video game books were not on that list.
 * Again, Jimbo did suggest that the books didn't belong on Wikibooks, but at the same time concensus simply did not occur. The books were simply deleted.  In regards to the rampant inclusionism, Wikibooks has been narrowing the defintion of what was included here for some time.  But that process was one of a more gradual process.  I will admit that the video game books did have significant opposition even before Jimbo came in and stirred up the pot, and it is possible that they may have eventually gone without Jimbo's interference.  But to say that video game books never really belonged here and there was no support nor legitmate arguments in favor of keeping them on Wikibooks is very much missing the true feelings of Wikibooks at the time.
 * My strongest objection to what happened was that this policy was never even followed (and it did exist at the time!) Books were simply deleted without any discussion, and on the presumed authority of Jimbo.  It wasn't until I started complaining that VfDs were started at all.  And it should be very apparent from the VfDs of the time that substantial books were indeed voted off of this project and whole categories of books (like fiction) were removed as well.  But it as done with widespread concensus.  This did not happen with the video game guides.  That video game books still exist on Wikibooks should be a testament that this concensus simply didn't happen, but that the contributors of those books were kicked off by aggressive administrators.  --Rob Horning 04:16, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Administrators do not need community consensus to delete manifest policy violations. Certainly consensus in those situations is a nice formality, but it isnt strictly required. It's why we have a category for speedy deletions in parallel to our normal VfD mechanism. Things on which there is no doubt about the inappropriateness of inclusion here can be deleted without first acquiring community consensus. The deletion policy says "when in doubt, nominate at VFD", which expressly leaves open an option for issues when there is no doubt. Jimbo did not need to explain his inclusion on the WB:WIW policy, the purpose and the implications were self evident: videogame guides do not belong here, and they should be deleted. When the oldest wikibookians agreed on the original text of WB:WIW (or the equivalent, since that's not what it was called), and agreed that wikibooks was for textbooks and not all manner of written work, consensus was acheived on this issue. We dont need community consensus again to confirm the text of that policy, it stands until the community agrees on a new version of it. Videogame guides always have been inappropriate here, and it was the fault of lazy admins in the past that they weren't removed like they should have been. the "aggressive admins" of the present time (of which I am proud to call myself a member) are simply following policy and making wikibooks a better place because of it.
 * Let's get one thing straight here: video game guides are not and never will be considered "textbooks". The fact that they were included here previously was a gross misjudgment by early wikibookians, and we are still dealing with that mess today. In all your complaints about this issue, Rob, you haven't once given good reason as to why videogame guides should not be summarily deleted. You talk about people not achieving consensus on the matter, you talk about the rashness of the decision, and you talk about Jimbo's lack of authority to make that call, but you are ignoring the fact that it was the right thing to do. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, to suggest that there is a right thing to do is patently false because we are not dealing with an ethical decision. There are opinions about what action is most acceptable, but there is not a "right" or a "wrong" course of action. --Iamunknown 19:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not implying it's an ethical decision, perhaps i should have used the word "correct" instead of "right". Choice of vocabulary not withstanding, you aren't addressing the issue here: Videogame guides are not textbooks, and they should not be on wikibooks. Me using the wrong word doesnt make the point less valid. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Hm?
Have you guys deleted the game guides because they were subjective, without verifibility?100110100 of Wikipedia70.74.35.252 05:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * No, we were deleting the game guides because they are not academic and they are not textbooks. Wikibooks is not a host for all sorts of printed materials, we only host textbooks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do books have to be academic and textbooks?100110100 of Wikipedia198.161.51.2 19:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's part of the inclusion criteria. It's like me asking why do wikipedia articles need to be verifiable? Every project has their own criteria, and our criteria is that things must be "textbooks". Why doesnt wikipedia allow videogame strategy guides? Why doesnt wikinews allow them? Just because you really like the guides, and just because this seems like the best place for them doesnt mean that we should allow them here. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the general statement "because this seems like the best place for them doesn't mean that we should allow them here." Always put stuff at the best place for that stuff. And there is always a place somewhere for sincere, well-intended stuff. If wikibooks is the best place for some text, then by all means, put that text on wikibooks.

However, I agree with the specific statement that video game strategy guides don't belong on wikibooks. Video game strategy guides don't belong here, because there are much better places for them.

Since one of my pet peeves is when people allude to "other places" but don't give enough information for me to find them, I'm going to list video games wiki here:


 * the WorldForge project
 * WikiXbox360
 * WikiDream
 * wikicheat
 * Wiki.AG: Absolute Games
 * Wiki gamer
 * W.G.G. wiki games guide
 * Unofficial TransGaming Wiki
 * the Underground-Gamer Wiki
 * Strategywiki -- has a nice Interwiki link
 * Strategy Guide Wiki
 * Scientific Study of Video Games a.k.a. The Video Game Player's Encyclopedia
 * RPG, the Wikia for role-playing gamers
 * RPGnetWiki
 * RoleWiki: encyclopedia of roleplay games
 * RPG Maker Wikia
 * PinWiki (for pinball games)
 * the English Nintendo Wikia
 * Nintendopedia
 * My Wiki 360
 * Mod-ified Design Wiki
 * IFWiki : interactive fiction (text adventures)
 * Gp2x dev wiki
 * GeezerMech Games
 * GamerWiki
 * Gamepedia
 * Gamecontractor Wiki
 * the game programming wiki
 * FreeGames wiki
 * Faqs 4 Games wiki
 * Encyclopedia Gamia and Gameinfo Wikia (now merged)
 * CheatBase
 * the Casual Game Wiki
 * Build Your Own Arcade

There are also many other wiki dedicated to one particular video game or another. The next person who starts thinking about writing yet another video game guide on Wikibooks -- is there a better way to redirect him to one of these better locations for his efforts? --DavidCary (talk) 05:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
 * We normally direct people to StrategyWiki:, but people are free to take the content to any of the above. The problem is that Wikibooks often seems like the best place to put content that doesn't belong on Wikipedia - if it doesn't fit inside their inclusion policy, it often ends up here. In the exact same way that Wikipedia has a strong inclusion policy, so too does Wikibooks, and it doesn't include video game guides (among other things). Each wiki has a specific scope, and you can't just dump content into any arbitrary wiki without regard for their inclusion policy. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

User Pages
I was under the impression that this policy contained mention of the fact that userpages may not be used to circumvent a VfD discussion. That is, when we vote to delete a book through VfD, that a person may not copy the book into their userspace and continue work on it from there. I would like to propose adding the following text to the VfD section:
 * A person's user and user talk pages may not be used to store copies of pages deleted through VfD. User pages may not be used to circumvent VfD or other community decisions or site policies.

What use is VfD anyway if people can simply move deleted material to the User: namespace, and continue working on it as usual? Furthermore, if VfD, we are typically voting for the deletion of content, not simply the deletion of particular pages. This would imply that the community is voting to delete the material regardless of what page or pages it is located on. Furthermore, while it hasn't happened in a long time, I'm decently certain that this kind of action has some precidence. although I need to find evidence of that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|15px]]  - I'd love to see that added. In the case which prompted this, there was a pre-existing draft in the userspace, so that wasn't actually an attempt to sidestep the VFD. It should be deleted, however. The author can keep the content, just not on Wikibooks (including their userspace). I think you're correct that this has happened in the past, though I'm not sure where. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 15:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Transwikied books
The policy currently states that:
 * "A page which has been transwikied to more appropriate wiki, and is considered to be against one or more policies here."

Pages that go against policy should be deleted whether they have been transwikied out or not. If someone could point out if there was some nuance intended here, this point could use a clarification. If it's just a redundant criteria that slipped in, we might as well remove it. --Swift (talk) 16:40, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, the latter part of this was just recently added. --Swift (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past works have been transwikied despite being perfectly within the scope of Wikibooks. I think the intent is to make policy clearer that works that have been transwiki must also be outside project scope before being deleted. --dark lama  21:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * In that case, removing the mention of transwikis would have done the trick. --Swift (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Edits and fixed version
I recently made 2 edits: 1- one very small, removed the word vote as per the now used language and I expect more in accordance to what was intended in the original text. 2- a somewhat confused duplication of what is written on the active Deletion policy.

I also find that I don't remember this policy being so pro-consensus (the true concept of it) and as is I can point several instances where the policy has been broken, can anyone point to the original approved version ?

To clarify. I like the policy text as it is but I think that it is not what has been applied and probably not what was approved. --Panic (talk) 08:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The only version I know was community approved was the one that is on Policies and guidelines/Vote, [] that makes deletion a personal decission the acting administrator without any special specifications, approved in ~2006 April, 15th 00:01 GMT. --Panic (talk) 09:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Active proposal Since the actual policy and what was approved have diverged significantly a restoration to the approved text should be made, if someone disagrees or has better information to clear this out, I will perform the restoration of that version and move the present text to an unstable version in 7 days. --Panic (talk) 09:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I did some rephrasing, to be clear that a user can make multiple comments, just only one declaration of position (keep or delete). I also caught &mdash; at the last moment &mdash; one use of the word "voting" that we'd both missed up till then (though I also actually put one in, in the context of stating plainly that the declarations of position are not a vote).  --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I object to reverting to any earlier revision. I believe that most changes were discussed somewhere before they were made or were small minor changes as mentioned elsewhere on this talk page. I believe even the changes made now while I didn't agree with the wording exactly still reflect the general intended spirit of the policy. I have gone ahead and reworded it some more in an attempt to be more general towards what we actually do. Delete and Keep are hardly the only positions a person can take when discussing a work for example. People can also suggest merging, moving to a different wiki, etc. --dark lama  16:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Since no one seems to be extremely hostile to the actual text, I have no problem in letting it stay where it is, but nevertheless it has to be validated by the normal procedural steps to be constituted as a community policy, as such there are several issues that have to be addressed.
 * Establish a static version for the evolution of this procedure. (There is still some minor improvements that are needed to be done before that, especially on the part referencing Transwiki and a more accurate description of the RFD proceedings and the possible outcomes as practiced now).
 * Merge as much as possible with the unstable version and delete that version (since it will be superseded by this one, there is no reason to have multiple discussion on the same subject, this can be done simultaneously with step 1).
 * Advance proposal for alterations to what is now covered. This has to be done after 1), for any contested change done to the text until 1) and for any unmergeable section of the now unstable proposal if someone wishes to champion some of what will be deleted after 2). This will then follow the normal procedure to establish community approval of the policy, which includes the necessary public announcements for participation. --Panic (talk) 17:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for alterations
On the Speedy deletions section, on point 1, "...or any page in which you are the only contributor." if IIRC this was already present on the previous versions in a separated line, in any case this shouldn't be possible, any contribution to Wikibooks constitutes a licensing for the use of that content as such the contributor shouldn't be allowed to request a pull down even if he has clear ownership of it, this is important if the content in question is useful (the no meaningful content is covered on a different line). Clearly blocking those action isn't also useful, since it could promote attempts for circumvention, the best option is not to have it mentioned at all, any such issue should be addressed by the normal copyright policy or RFD (where a dialog would be possible). Since it is clear that that was not the intention of the text. Something similar in its intention but also badly worded on the Speedy deletion section, on point 5, "A page that has been nominated for deletion due to a general reorganization by the contributors. In this situation, please include a link to the relevant discussion that occurred regarding the cleanup." this would also permit content loss, a wording requiring that all useful content was preserved is needed, as promoting the request of history merges. I call the situations similar, in that there will not be an active party defending the community interests (the preservation of content), making it so that no opposition would be expected by those acting toward the speedy deletions (even with the best intentions). In both situation the best option is to remove them as speedy deletions reasons, valid variations are already covered and more complex situations would be addressed by other existing processes. --Panic (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

One week
Due to the size of the Wikibooks community, the following sentences should be altered:


 * One week after the last comment if participants have mostly reached consensus about what to do, action will be taken by an administrator. Otherwise discussion may continue until consensus is reached.

To, perhaps, something like:


 * Discussions may not be closed until consensus is reached or one month has elapsed.

How's that? Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 14:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you intended to propose what your wording would do. By my reading, it would eliminate the one-week constraint entirely, and place a one-month lower limit on something else that is now unconstrained.  The two different issues are:
 * How long does an admin wait before declaring a consensus, and taking action?
 * How long does an admin wait before declaring a non-consensus, and closing without action?
 * Taking these one at a time,
 * The existing wording says that consensus has to be stable for a week. The proposed wording would remove that, but I'm not sure you intended to.  Perhaps you intended to propose increasing it?
 * The existing wording places no hard limits on how long a non-consensus will remain open; it's up to the judgment of admins. Presumably that's because closing as no-consensus does no harm, and leaving open does no harm either.  My inclination is toward leaving admins with flexibility in a no-harm situation.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note that anyone can close the discussions (even if some outcomes can only be implemented by admins). --Panic (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see a need for a change, in the event that the time-frame was problematic we would have seen an increase on undeletion requests. I also like that there is not imposition of a hard limit. --Panic (talk) 19:20, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not understand why there has to be an increase on undeletion requests. I am only concerned that admins are no longer able to close discussions within 1 week even if consensus is reached. I'm sure most Wikibookians have noticed by now that the RfDs (as well as most other reading rooms) are much less active than before - perhaps even less active than Adrignola's talk page.


 * I have read Pi zero's comments and decided to re-word the sentence I proposed. Yes, I do plan to get rid of the one-week thing, not lengthen it, to provide room for speedy/snowball keep/delete Feel free to alter it as I know it isn't perfect.


 * Discussions may not be closed until consensus is reached or a significant period of time has elapsed without any progress in discussion, in which case an admin will close the discussion as no consensus and the page shall be kept.


 * Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 01:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone can close discussions. In any case we would certainly find people that would be willing to take on that administrative task if it becomes an issue.
 * If it isn't broken it doesn't need fixing and your proposed change would not bring any improvement over the common practice. RfD aren't exactly a priority from most Wikibookians this is clearly seen by the historical lack of participation on the discussions, even by the people that create the works under RfD, but it is one of the easiest areas to be noticed in the project by the active minority, we should also note that there is a finite number of pages that can be deleted and we recently had a some months of above normal activity on the RfDs and the new methods and practices have reduced for some time the chance of creating works that could be targeted by a RfD.
 * I also note that your new wording changes the default to a keep (in case of no participation). Most (but not all) RfDs are a proposal for deletion with a supporting justification for it, in the cases of solitary proposals (not seconded) would automatically result in a block to the proposal. --Panic (talk) 03:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Non-admins can only close discussions as speedy keep or, if an admin has deleted already, speedy delete. Could you please explain why you believe that the one week thing should be kept despite common practice? Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 06:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Darklama already covered the issue but so to be clear and respond to your question "One week after the last comment..." leaves ample room to any opposition to materialize, it is not "despite common practice" as you state but it is the common practice (and policy). --Panic (talk) 03:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Everything about the deletion process seems to be working fine to me. Don't fix what isn't broken. I believe 1 week is seen as a soft limit in any case. Deciding what to do and acting on decisions shouldn't be confused for one another. Everyone is expected to follow the basic principals outlined by the decision making guideline when judging what the consensus is. Anyone, including people without tools, can close deletion discusses as non-speedy keep and delete too. Common practice may be for the person that intends to carry out the clean up to close discussion, but that is not required nor should it be. Being involved in the process of making a call on what the consensus is is one of many ways people can be involved in the community and possible demonstrate whether they would make good use of the tools or not if they had the tools. Making a call on what the consensus is is no big deal and if people believe the call doesn't accurately reflect what the consensus is, discussion will continue, the decision will be ignored, or the decision will be reversed. However using the tools to delete pages is considered a big deal (a high impact decision), which administrators are expected to do there best to get right and only do when appropriate. Assuring consensus is a part of that, but is not exclusive to administrators. --dark lama  01:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the deletion process isn't broken. But that's all I agree with in the above paragraph.  Someone closing a non-speedy discussion without the tools to act on the decision or the explicitly defined community trust to do so is disruptive in my opinion and the idea that it's permissible is news to me. – Adrignola talk 03:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The short answer is assume good faith explicitly requires us to trust all members of the community, Administrators are not given any extra authority, and giving people the administrative tools is suppose to be no big deal. We must assume in good faith that anyone that closes a deletion discussion has done so in good faith with good intentions, unless specific reasons to doubt a person's intentions can be given or unless specific reasons to reverse a person's decision to close are given. --dark lama  09:04, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I am also of the opinion the deletion process isn't broken. Actually I quite the fan of the one week rule. I know there was at least one non-speedy RfD that got handled in a speedy way that I objected to (rather heatedly unfortunately).  I personally think that any non-reversible action (including history merges) shouldn't be taken until after the one week after the last comment is up.  But I don't think that needs to be spelled out in policy.   I am in favor of keeping the Deletion policy as is. Thenub314 (talk) 06:48, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Question about Speedy Deletion reason 6 for "orphaned" redirects
E.g. Cookbook:Pumpkin_pie, why is this not a valid redirect? I am relatively new to the project and recently created Cookbook:Custard pie as a redirect. Redirects are cheap and it seems that it would be better for people to hit a valid redirect than a deleted page. The reason I created the redirect is that a Wikipedia article Custard pie linked there. Because it did so, via a standard template, it is likely that hundreds of Wikipedia articles link to such pages (Pumpkin pie does) (and to non-existent pages). I've raised the issue on the relevant wikipedia template talk page but at the same time, I don't see why such redirects are considered "orphaned or broken" (one can only know if it's locally orphaned, not globally orphaned, without using toolserver tools) or why "orphaned" would be a valid reason for redirects to be deleted, that precludes any redirect that isn't used as a wikilink (and could preclude all redirects as all links could be 'fixed' to go around the redirect and link directly to the object). Furthermore, a cross-case redirect seems logical, newcomers are unlikely to know minute rules like the fact that Cookbook namespace uses title case for all articles, especially if they've come here from Wikipedia, which prohibits such names (not to suggest that Wikibooks should follow those rules but it should 'care' about what referers sister projects may be using). I've only been here a couple days and searching even for the rules on this caused me to run into several other deleted redirects (because I was looking where I thought made sense, which usually indicates a redirect is called for), e.g. Help:Redirect (which is even more puzzling to me than Pumpkin Pie). Please explain.--Doug (discuss • contribs) 21:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Books are self contained and intended to be capable of standing alone. Links from outside a book into the sub structure of the book are discouraged because they make the navigation confusing. While it may be obvious how links (and redirects are just a special kind of link) work to a Wikipedia user, this isn't Wikipedia and follows a different design for a different readership. To someone used to using books, or textbooks specifically, links that jump into the middle of another book, or out of the book, are confusing. When reading a book on physics you wouldn't expect to suddenly find yourself in a book on computer programming on sub page 6 in chapter 9 reading a paragraph on what a program is because you happened to click on a link "program." Instead you'd expect at the most to be taken to a glossary within the book you were reading that explained "program" within the context of the book you were reading. The problem that redirects create is that it causes inappropriate linking. Let's say there is a redirect from "Program" to "Computer Programming/Definitions/Beginners#Program" - this means every link that was a red link in every book to "Program" will now link out of the book. It also isn't clear this should be the redirect - unlike Wikipedia there are hundreds or thousands of places "Program" could be linked to. But because this isn't an encyclopedia and is structured as books not articles, the DAB pages used in Wikipedia are inappropriate here and won't solve the problem. I've heard this explained before as think about Wikipedia as a single book. So Wikibooks is actually 2,695 individual Wikipedias each of which needs to have unique redirects and links. The only way to do this today is with separate namespaces for each book - which isn't going to happen. The alternative is to try and make the books self contained by not having cross book links - and redirects are just a special form of cross book link. As for the Cookbook - it is the same problem, albeit slightly easier because the Cookbook is in its own namespace. The same issue is there though. Who says "Raspberry Pie" should go to a recipe or a book on programming the Raspberry Pie or a sub page of the computer programming book, or the book on firmware engineering page? Without a massive DAB structure it'll quickly become a huge navigational mess. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 23:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Move for change
In the Copyright section: The user who submitted the work has one week from this date to prove that they had permission to post the work, otherwise it will be deleted. should be reformed into: Violations can be resolved for instance by obtaining express permission from the copyright owner (see Boilerplate request for permission), those should be registered at the Wikimedia's OTRS if possible. While resolution is open to anyone, the user who submitted the content must defend his contribution as a registered Wikibookian with a valid email.

The user who submitted the work has one week from this date to prove that they had permission to post the work, otherwise it will be deleted.

After 7 days from the notice date if unresolved the violation will be deleted. Rational for the change: The information is not available in the Copyright policy and it expressly addresses surviving a copyvio notification. Since unregistred user's identity is harder to verify it seems reasonable to require a higher standard as to contest evidential proof of a possible copyright violation and so ease the identification of the one responsible for the added content (and crosschecking the rights). This of course does not exclude the need of a RfD in cases that the danger of using suspect material supplants the benefits to the project. Note that the Copyright policy deals exclusively with clear violations or pull down request not the suspicion of problematic content. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 13:23, 6 October 2014 (UTC)