Wikibooks talk:Requests for deletion/Archive 1

Moving content to user space during VfD
This has happened a couple of times already, so I think this is a significant issue that needs to be addressed. Generally speaking, I give quite a bit of lattitude toward content in the user space, but I think it is a breech of ettiquette if nothing more to "protect" content by moving from the main project space into your own user space.

More to the point, what sort of limits ought to be place on content in the user space. WB:WIN already points out that Wikibooks is not a personal soapbox to put whatever garbage you want to have here, and that it is not a personal website or hosting service either. In this regard, I would like to add perhaps as a rationale for becoming a speedy delete candidate any attempt to move content that is up for a VfD to somebody's user space explictly for avoiding deletion. I'm not against concensus within the VfD to have this happen, but it shouldn't be the action of the person trying to defend the content to avoid the deletion.

Notably, Hud and Hel has done this. I don't want to make an example out of these particular Wikibook, but if you made it clear that moving content to avoid deletion will get it deleted and it is better the simply wait out the VfD and might end this sort of practice. As this is not currently policy, I don't want to invoke this policy in this situation.

A related issue is concerning what should be place in the user space? IMHO it should be mainly personal contact information, and content that is directly related to activities here on Wikibooks, such as proposed policies, cleanup projects, new Wikibooks you want to develop without a bunch of fingers in them at first, and perhaps a private sandbox. I fail to see the problem with resumes or cirricula vitae type information on a user page or sub-page, but this is explictly prohibited on Wikipedia. I think that somebody creating an account on Wikibooks just to post a resume is wrong, but that is another issue we can deal with in the future. --Rob Horning 13:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see the problem with users moving content to their user pages as long as they don't archive it there after it has been deleted. Has this been severe enough of a problem to warrant adding a new clause to this policy? --Swift 17:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion is a bit old, but I will add my two cents to it nonetheless. Let us consider that all of wikibooks is fashioned after our particular mission: To write open-content textbooks. If we consider that all the meta-content pages (userpages especially) exist for the purpose of facilitating this mission, then we can reasonably delete any meta-content page that fails in this regard. A page that has been slated for deletion by community consensus at VfD is contra to this mission, and therefore it can be deleted where ever it is. In other words, the user space is not some kind of protected domain, it exists as a space that our members can use to facilitate the creation of textbooks. While we can broadly interpret this statement (what constitutes "faciliation" anyway?), there are some things that we can say are strictly outside the bounds of this rule.
 * On a side note, Resumes and curriculum vitae are a fuzzy area, and I can think of many arguments for and against allowing such things here on wikibooks. Wikibooks is not a meritocracy, and since we are not judged here based on our "real world" qualifications, it makes little sense to advertise those qualifications on our pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I made this comment, there are at least two Wikibooks that were "sidelined" instead of being deleted. One of which was User:Sj/Whole Earth Catalog.  In this case in particular the user should have known better (he "lost" becoming a member of the board of trustees of the WMF by only a few votes and is very active on the Foundation level even now).  This is a topic I bring up because other content has been moved around this way to avoid a VfD when it might simply have failed if brought up.  --Rob Horning 04:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Subpages on VFD
I think we should adopt the WP style for VFD; subpages for each VFD which are transcluded into the main page. Opinions? Kellen T 12:02, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary. It's only done on WP because of the volume of VfDs and the need to help automate the process. The smaller volume here on WB means we do not need to duplicate WP's methods for dealing with high volumes, Jguk 18:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually the main advantage I thought of was that the pages would be much easier to address and find for old VFDs. e.g. I'm curious about the VFD on Making an Island, but that means going through the old archives. Not impossible, but the subpage method would make it obvious where to find such pages. Also the templates used on the talk pages regarding old VFDs could then easily link to the appropriate VFD discussion. Kellen T 18:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to file them alphabetically. Alternatively, where a VfD has resulted in the book being kept (which in theory should be shown on its talk page), all you need to do is go to that book's main page and type "what links here".

Personally I prefer not having transcluded pages, as not having them makes it easier to post things, Jguk 11:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Having only one page for VFD encourages us not to do too many polls simultaneously. Someone might want to make an index of the archives though; they are becoming more difficult to search through. --Kernigh 01:14, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Each page would be transcluded, as on the w:WP:VFD daily pages, so they would all show up on a single page. Kellen T 13:44, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, using "what links here", as Jguk, suggests, becomes too complex when large numbers of pages link to a book. Transclusion, as Kellen suggests, would solve the problem of everything not being on the same page. Historically, a few VFD polls overflowed into subpages linked from the main VFD page: Votes for deletion/A guide to cheating during tests and examinations (the first VFD, not the second); Votes for deletion/Jokebook; Votes for deletion/The Manual of Crime; Votes for deletion/Wikiversity.

I looked at w:WP:VFD, and apparently they use three templates of substitution (afd1, afd2, afd3) to implement their system. The afd1 tags a page for potential deletion, afd2 creates a voting subpage, and afd3 does the transclusion. Then the adoption of a subpage system here would require revising Deletion policy to tell everyone to use the new templates. I am not sure whether to support such a system; maybe we should use a system like s:WS:DEL instead? --Kernigh 22:36, 6 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not quite sure how s:WS:DEL is any different from what we do now... they don't seem to have any subpages. Perhaps you mean having everything transcluded onto one VFD page instead of WP's daily VFD pages? If that is what you meant, that is what I had intended to propose. Kellen T 08:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This never seems to have gotten off the ground but there don't seem to be any great barriers but a lack of overall enthusiasm. I was just struggling to find an old VfD without success and reckoned we'll have to do this sooner or later. I, personally, prefer doing this when we have 13 old-style archive than 31.

How do people feel about this: --Swift 07:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One page includes all active VfD debates.
 * Once closed, the inclusion link is simply deleted.
 * VfD nominations are added by:
 * Template added to page for VfD.
 * This links to WB:VFD/ . Follow the link, set up a level-3 heading with the page name (template for this?) and state your rationale.
 * Link to the new page on WB:VFD.


 * I do think this is worthwhile looking at a bit more. The page can look quite messy with no real clarity about what is active and what is not (tho I've just played with that!).  Certainly archiving can be kept up to date but finding anything in the archive would not be easy in many cases.  I tempted to say that the debate should only last so long but here I'm not sure that is wise so I won't!  To look for a better solution seems worthwhile -- Herby  talk thyme 12:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This proposal is a way to make archive searching simpler as you can use Special:Prefixindex/Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion to list them. Furthermore, not all VfD survivors have the vfd-survived tag and they might get deletd (e.g. accidentally) on others. In those cases the new VfD discussion would point to the same sub-page, avoiding a mistaken resubmission and giving context should it be discussed on new grounds.
 * The problem with identifying closed debates is, I belive, a seperate issue on which I think we agree on the solution.
 * I'm all for discussing my proposal as I have no illusions about the infallibility of my own wisdom and insight. --Swift 13:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of using subpages for each individual VFD request is a good idea and makes sence for solving the problem of locating books or pages previous brought up for deletion easier. vfd-survived seems like a short term notification rather then a parement fixture and finding previous discussions requires using the search tool. I think there could be a problem with using the template/inlcusion approach though. May be confusing for inexperenced Wikibookians to figure out. I think the current approach of just posting to the VFD page is fine, just we should move them to individual archives with the name of the page/book being discussed to make finding easier. Archive1, Archive2, etc. doesn't convay much and neither does providing dates if you don't know or remember when a VFD discusssion took place. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 14:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Given the length of time stuff can hang around here even the dates isn't that good a guideline! I was looking for something yesterday and knew the date of the edit but it was not in that archive but the next one - anything that makes it easier is good with me -- Herby  talk thyme 14:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it really that confusing? The user currently has to:
 * add a template to the page up for deletion, and
 * add a nomination on the VfD page.
 * When setting up the subpage nomination, the user would have to:
 * add a template to the page up for deletion,
 * add a nomination on the VfD subpage, and
 * include it on the VfD page.
 * One can either way look at it as a 50% increase in the number of steps, or as a measely inclusion on a page that is already accessible by a link from the subpage. I'm all for making this transparent and simple, but think we can make the three-step process pretty painless (or perhaps offer both, the two-step would be explained on the VfD and could link to a more full discussion on WB:DP).
 * A neat feature of adding the subpage at the time of nomination is that it becomes instantly apparent whether the discussion has been gone through before. --Swift 14:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was kind of thinking of users who do step 1 and forget to do step 2. I could imagine a scenereo in which people remember to do step 1 and step 2 and forget to do step 3. So the page has been nominated for deletion but nobody knows it. In some ways I think this could be solved if we used the talk page for the votes for deletion category instead for discussions, much as discussion about SD candidates happen on the talk page for the category. My only concern is with another step added, another chance for someone to not do it. The process only works if people do it. I see more advantages to disadvantages, its just a concern of will it work? People would actually know its gone through before the moment they add vfd since the link would be blue rather then red, since the template could be updated to point directly to the subpage rather then remain a link to the section on WB:VFD. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 15:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Try AfD's on Wp (without .js) - it would put you off deleting anything for life (well marking it). You are quite right to have the reservation tho.  I think I've twice spotted incorrectly marked VfDs on RC (in that they have missed the "nomination on VfD page" part).  If they can get the current system wrong then ....?  I guess it could be scripted but few people here seem to use that much.  I wonder how many folk actually use VfD (or indeed almost any other "maintenance" templates).  Ramble over - back to thinking! -- Herby  talk thyme 15:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's then start by archiving to sub-pages. If people like, this can be moved into the VfD process and even to the time of nomination. I think we can &mdash; without complicating things &mdash; have two methods of VfD: one where you create the sub-page right away, and the other where you just add a tag on the page and mention it on WB:VFD (basically: new and old both available). --Swift 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Got my vote so that's a majority (!) lets do it. Just spent quite a while trying to find the closings of VfDs that are still tagged - hate for anyone else to have to do that -- Herby  talk thyme 19:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A quick review
A quick review of VfD shows that the process is working reasonably well, but I want to encourage admins to feel more bold to go against a vote when the result is clearly wrong. If something is not a textbook, then delete it anyway. A reasonable respect for the voting process makes sense, but doing the right thing is what we should do.

The page that I speedied involved a debate which was transparently irrelevant, as to whether the information given would allow someone to break the law or not. Well, that may or may not be an interesting debate, but it has virtually nothing to do with whether or not it should have been kept. --Jimbo Wales 13:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So how do you define a textbook? WB:WIW doesn't really do a good job, and suggesting that they have to have the same standards of development as a university textbook or be about a subject in a specific college course catalog is hardly going to give this project justice.  Or allow creativity to develop content that is not paper (aka Wikibooks is not paper from WB:WIW)  There can and should be more room to develop this, and again from my opinion, Wikibooks is about books, not necessarily textbooks.  Clearly textbooks should be a major aim, and there are some borderline books that should go, and they have been deleted.  Thank you for at least taking the time to see that this page is working.


 * BTW, the reason why the debate over legality of the topic was happening is because many admins and other users here feel that content that specifically advocates or documents how to break the law is considered inappropriate for Wikibooks. This book about ripping CDs definitely fell into the realm of that discussion.  --Rob Horning 23:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Protection
I notice that the VfD page is currently being protected, and I'm wondering if there is a particular rationale for this. If not, I think that we should unprotect it ASAP, so that regular users can vote on VfD. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Never mind, I was looking at the wrong page. My bad. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I figured it out: The WB:VFD page is currently being protected, and If there is no specific reason why, it should be removed so normal users can vote on VfD. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it is only move protected. I think anyone can still edit there. -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, that makes good sense. I just wanted to make sure that nobody was disenfranchised. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, everybody is enfranchised (disenfranchised is not a real word, IMO). :-) -- LV (Dark Mark) 01:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

VfD Archival Guidelines
There has only really been minor discussion on this, and I think it should be discussed a bit to come up with some guidelines to help keep VfD cleaned up. Here's my suggestions, based on what seems to be current precedent and some common sense:


 * 1) Closed votes should be clearly marked as such on the last line, either by kept or deleted, and signed/dated by whoever made the designation.
 * 2) Votes should be archived to the latest archive page seven days after the closure of the vote.
 * 3) Archive pages should have about 20 sections before starting a new page, but page length should be taken into consideration more than number of sections. Seeing as how it's hard to directly "date" a discussion (as one may have begun later and ended earlier than another, longer discussion), sections should just be added to the end of the archive page.

I also propose a new archival rule as well:


 * 1) Longer discussions should be given their own subpage, for several reasons:
 * 2) *Longer discussions may have subsections of their own.
 * 3) *These longer votes may have formed new policy or adjustments to existing policy, and it would be easier to directly reference these votes.

The naming convention for these pages could be as simple as Wikibooks:Votes for Deletion/Module Name, with some sort of template on the page to indicate that it is a closed discussion. (Actually, the existing archive pages should probably also bear such a notice.)

While this isn't exactly necessary or groundbreaking policy (it's just a suggested guideline) it would help keep things clean and easier to navigate. Xerol Oplan 00:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

VfD closure labelling
I think it is time this be brought up. I really like what Herby did with the look of the debate closures and would like to see this commonly used.

I also think having a couple of templates for this would be useful. Something like vfd-delete-top, vfd-keep-top and vfd-bottom &mdash; the "top" placed just under the header and the "bottom" under the discussion. This way one could edit both by using the section edit links. The debate closure statement would come up top and a summary would be given as an argument.

Thoughts? --Swift 13:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Definitely in favour of this. The vfd page is too crowded and it's difficult to see what is being discussed at the moment. The new look for debate closures is much better. Xania 19:32, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

How about in place of vfd-delete-top and vfd-keep-top? Why is this being discussed here instead of in Wikibooks_talk:Votes for deletion btw? Seems like the more approperiate place for this discussion, since its related specifically to VFD and not the deletion policy. --dark lama  21:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't really care whether to use a single or multiple top-templates. There are both pros and contras.
 * "Why is this being discussed here instead of in Wikibooks_talk:Votes for deletion btw?" It redirects here. --Swift 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh ok. I never noticed it redirects here. It appears it was turned into a redirect but contains a long edit history. Maybe it needs to be archived as part of the deletion policy? So it can be freed up for use of discussions like this and questions concerning VFD.
 * As for the one top-template, the pros I see are one less template to think about, more flexability because it allows for things like hold-off, merge, conditional keeps, etc. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 22:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Do you mean seperating the talk pages again? Sure. I don't really mind either way at this point. Perhaps open up a discussion under a new section.
 * "one less template to think about". Categorizing them makes them easy to manage. Adding to the list of templates can be easier than modifying a complex functional one. This, of course, is both a good and a bad thing.
 * "more flexability because it allows for things". I'm not quite sure how it offers flexibility that cannot be achieved by multiple templates. A single parameter for explaining the closure should suffice for pretty much everything I've seen. --Swift 23:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Typo on my part, I meant "for more things" above. I agree a single parameter should be enough. A template such as vfd-top-delete implies a specialized use. Multiple specialized templates would then need to be created for each new case that comes up. A more generalized template thats less specialized allows for more flexability in its use and intended purpose. I think is good enough. Any specialized templates, if created in this case, I think would just be copies of each other with little or no change. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama  00:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, call me a fancy-pansy but I kind of liked the idea of having two templates &mdash; one for deleted pages and one for not (that should cover all cases) &mdash; so that they could be coloured differently. That is pretty much the only reason I wanted the split. Such a simple case would be easy to do with a parser function. *sigh* there really is no clear benefit on either side to tip the balance.
 * OK, I think this isn't really going anywhere. Let's go with the single template and see where that takes us.
 * Herby already started closed. Should we use that or is the name unhelpfully ambiguous? I won't be able to start working on this by Sunday, but please feel free to go ahead and come up with something to your liking. --Swift 01:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Separation of discussion pages
I went ahead and separated recent discussions dealing with changes that effect the VFD page (such has archiving and diving into subpages) from discussion about changes to the Deletion policy itself, since one can have very little to do with the other. --dark lama  00:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Definitely one of those "strange ones" thanks for doing it -- Herby talk thyme 08:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Early sub-page-ing
I was just putting a closed VfD onto a subpage (IPOD NANO) and realized that the history of edits isn't preserved ... well, it is on WB:VFD but I could see it as a useful feature to have the whole discussion there.

I'm going to start moving current discussions to sub-pages if no-one objects (soon, preferably) and would like to suggest that editors who are comfortable with it (I trust the regulars watch this page) that they take up this practice and even put the VfDs they start on sub-pages right away. I'm going to start work on templates that will make this work simple. I'll post links to them when I've got something up. --Swift 03:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How's User:Swift/vfd for starters? If the sub-page exists it lists it (well, should &mdash; I haven't tried it live), but if not it lists the section and provides a simple link to the sub-page for easy archiving. --Swift 03:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I just gave it a whirl in "Show preview" mode while archiving to Votes for deletion/Wikijunior How Things Work/Flush toilet. Apart from some minor displaying issues (I floated the image so the border vertical size is only determined by the text so the image flows below it &mdash; I prefer divs to tables ... mostly on principle). This sucker is backwards compatible so I'm suggesting merging its added functionality into vfd. --Swift 03:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any reason to object to the comprimise of allowing both adding through inclusion and added directly to the page, nor even to people who know how moving the decussions to a subpage and doing the inclusion. So long as its not a requirement and people don't take to frowning on those who don't do so, I have no objection. I think updating the vfd should be fine, although I think your version needs some tweaking before being made the current version. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 04:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What sort of tweaking are you thinking of? Please feel free (and that goes for anyone else) to change User:Swift/vfd to illustrate your suggestions. It isn't (and shouldn't be) used anywhere, so for discussion it is easy to refer to specific versions of it. --Swift 02:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok I made the tweaks. I replaced the entire message and changed the icon, but left the ifexist condition in place. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 03:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm taking the template specific discussion to User talk:Swift/vfd. --Swift 05:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The lack of infrastructure for VfD sub-page'ing
I like the idea of creating subpages for each individual VfD. And, as far as I can tell, that is standard practice for archiving subpages. I would like, however, to preserve the edit history in a more usable format. To do this, I say that we should implement a sub-page system from the start. I will work on it some more later today. Instead of the link "Add new entry" pointing to adding a new section, I think we should use &#60;inputbox> method used at Wikimedia Commons. I would, however, be okay with a method similar to Wikipedia. I am posting this here to give people an idea of possible changes. This is a high-impact situation, and I do not intend to hijack it without input from others. --Iamunknown 19:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Some kind of a change would certainly be welcome. Whatever you choose to do should be easy to use, and not involve alot of busywork or boiler-plate text. Things that are more simple are more likely to be followed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Rekindling discussion about this. I was going to suggest using transcluded subpages myself, but I remembered that it has been discussed before. I wanted to put a link in the deletion summary to the vfd, but I can't - it changes locations when we archive it. I think using transcluded subpages will be much easier for several reasons. a) discussion will take place at a static location, so it can be easily linked to b) edit histories for each vfd will be kept intact. There are 2 downsides though: a) may be more complicated to nominate stuff for new users who don't know how to create a new page (I'm sure there is some magic that can be used to make a "nominate something" button) b) using Prefixindex: to browse the archives will also turn up current vfds (not a big problem - how many are ever on the go?) and c) minor problems may arise for 2nd-time nominations (etc), but can be resolved manually with no great difficulty.
 * All in all, I think the ability to keep edit histories intact and link easily to a static discussion in the deletion summary outweigh the problems mentioned. What say you? – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 15:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is the automagical page creation thing from Commons. It may need further tweaking.


 * – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * To solve the problem of multiple nominations and also the problem of archives and active VFDs showing up together when using Special:Prefixindex, we can archive by moving the discussion from Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Book --> Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Book (Archive) & deleting the redirect. If it gets nominated again, Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Book is still available and would get archived to Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/Book (Archive 2) etc. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 04:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem with using subpages right off is then you have to add multiple pages to your watchlist to keep track of what's been nominated for deletion. I don't think its import to preserve the edit history for discussion pages. I also think in general pages or books don't and shouldn't get renominated for deletion for the same reasons. If a page or book is renominated, I don't see the problem with archiving the new discussions with the old discussions. We could start archiving nominations as soon as they are closed and transclude them onto the vfd page in order to allow the links to work in the deletion reasons and still allowing people to find out what the outcome was for awhile. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:03, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you'd have to watch each subpage for additions (ie if you want to follow the discussion (which we all want to do, or should want to do). But to actually see when things are nominated, you'd only have to watch one page. When something gets added via transclusion, you'll see it pop up. This assumes that all users will figure out how to transclude the subpage they've created, but some attentiveness to what's going on will catch anyone who creates the subpage but doesn't transclude it onto WB:VFD.
 * As I noted, the problem with multiple nominations is a rare one, and is easily solved in numerous ways, two of which are seen above (though yours is simpler and allows side-by-side comparison of nominations, so that method should be used preferentially).
 * That said, your middle road is perfect as long as we don't mind having edit histories located only on WB:VFD, and not on each subpage. I think it is worth the minor difficulties I mentioned (and I've noted 2 ways of mitigating them) to have the full edit history on each subpage. This allows easy review if needed. I agree that it's not important for most discussion pages, but for this discussion page, dealing with content deletion, I think it's worth the tradeoff.
 * For now, I'll be doing exactly as you've suggested (unless there is objection) - when closing, I'll move it to a subpage, and transclude it back onto WB:VFD so it can be seen. The deletion summary can then easily link to the discussion so users can see why it was deleted. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 14:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Having to watch each subpage for additions, not having a clear way to indicate that new discussions is taking place, people forgetting to use that method if one is thought of, and relying on people's attentiveness are all reasons why I object to using subpages right away for deletion nominations. I don't think people should have to watch multiple nomination pages to follow all the deletion discussions and whats going on. I think it will also lead to less involvement in the discussion process and will as a result reflect the community less. I think keeping edit history intact creates more problems then it solves and needing to keep edit histories intact hasn't actually been demonstrated yet as being a problem in the first place. There are also not that many people involved in community discussions for people to notice if someone nominates a page or book for deletion and forgets to add it to the right place(s). We already have problems occasionally with people adding to a page and not adding it to WB:VFD. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  15:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. When closing, let's move to the subpage, but transclude it back so it can be seen for a while. This allows a link in the deletion summary to the static location. As an aside, I've added Category:Votes for deletion to WB:ACW, so if the nom is incomplete, we'll at least see it there. – <font color="Indigo">Mike.lifeguard  &#124; <font color="Indigo">talk 21:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Historical discussions
G'day, Iamunknown suggests that discussions about the history of Wikibooks and VfD policy are appropriate for the VfD page where people vote for / against deletion of books and pages. Perhaps, but I would prefer that discussions about policy and history remain on policy or talk pages, and not clutter up the VfD discussions themselves. We already have policy and history discussions spewing across enough pages without having them complicate basic functional pages like VfD as well. cheers, Webaware talk 23:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The point here, however, is that the discussion was also directly tied to the content of the book, or in this case trying to determine if the comment was valid or not and needed to be "striken out".


 * I don't know when this "policy" was added to this page to not permit anon comments, but this edit from October of last year did not have that policy listed. I'm guessing it was added since then.  In fact, if you look at this historical version of this page, anon users even nominated books for deletion, and the fact that it was an anon user was not really a point under discussion at all.


 * Or to drive this point home, when we are talking about trying to delete content that somebody has spent hours or even months trying to develop, we ought to at least give them the benefit of the doubt and try to work with these users as best as we can. We don't require people to be registered users when they add content here, and there are some legitimate reasons why they may not want to set up a formal account.


 * For myself, I would like to see this policy "stricken" from this page and to permit anon comments. --Rob Horning 04:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * For the record, I don't have any issue with anon comments, but the current VfD page does state that registered users may vote and so votes to keep such as the one made by the anon should not be permitted.
 * Regarding your discussion, I'm quite happy for you to discuss away to your heart's content, but I'm finding it increasingly tiresome to have to wade through your lengthy historical perspectives on non-discussion pages. Please either keep it short, or take it to a discussion page like this one.
 * If you have a problem with current policy, by all means please address the policy, but let's not bog down the active pages on this project with retrospectives and policy rehashings. Some of us really just want to know what the current policy is, so that we can stick to it. Webaware talk 04:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the point is that much of what is discussed is not policy, but the assumptions that many people have made thinking it was policy. And I am calling people to account for that when they are claiming policy status, such as the video game book deletions and culling anon comments in this case.  I don't know who added that policy, and by the same authority (none what so ever) I can remove that same policy, I guess.
 * I also think that it is important that historical perspetives are given, to understand why things were done the way they are done, particularly if you weren't involved with the original discussions. The VfD pages have been (at least here on Wikibooks) a traditional place to try and define where policies are breaking down and perhaps need to be fixed.  I can name on several occasions when significant policy documents have been written specifically as a result of these VfD discussions.
 * You are also insisting here on a much stronger formalism taking place on this page than has been traditionally been found here in the past. Some of this is due to the fact that Wikibooks in the more recent past was a small project with few users that tended to know one another.  OK, perhaps we need to be more formal due to the growing size of active users, but you shouldn't bite people's heads off either.  And again, why should these discussion about policy, particularly when they are related directly to the book being deleted, not be relevant?  --Rob Horning 04:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies for "biting your head off". I'm a bit weary at present, and Wikibooks is a place for me to hide from real work for a bit. I wander around, looking at some (ever more) staff lounge pages and VfD and the like, and increasingly find that they are bogged down with discussions of policy and essays on the history of Wikibooks. That's all well and good, and most likely even desirable, but IMHO often out of place. Whether you determine something to be policy or not is not relevant to me, as I just want to know what is or is not acceptable (which, formally or informally, is policy - quack).
 * I think that in this instance, I've jumped the gun as your comments on VfD were in fact nearly pertinent and certainly brief. However, when time is short and I just want to contribute what I can to whomever requires a little input, like a VfD or an editing issue, I prefer to not spend half an hour reviewing all the various community pages to find the non-policy, non-essay stuff.
 * Again, my apologies for biting your head off, it's not your fault that Microsoft is driving me up the wall on a Sunday. However, I still request that discussions about policy and history don't drown out the pertinent stuff on the various staff lounge pages. cheers, Webaware talk 05:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC) (off to have some mead and try to settle down a bit)

←deindent I don't understand why people, on several functional pages, quickly and readily dismiss historical perspectives. They are definitely important, and I am always grateful when I see Rob argue with arguments based both in historical contexts and contemporary situations. I wish that I could do that as well, but I am afraid I do not know enough Wikibooks history. And, considering how much policy is changing, as can easily be seen on all the talk pages of "unstable" policy modules, that to become so readily weary of lengthy policy-related and historical discussion is to be weary of the exact process that policy is being created on Wikibooks. I admit that sometimes I get weary: then, I just go away; it's like a wikibreak from policy pages. Lately, however, I've been trying to get back into the fray. I'd like to help out around here and help form policy, so that's what I'm trying to do. --Iamunknown 08:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * One of these days, I really need to sit down and start writing a full History of Wikibooks. It is very interesting, and there is a wealth of information that can be obtained from the logs, discussion pages, and mailing lists that would turn it into something that perhaps could be of practical use in discussions like this as well.  I really need to get User:Karl Wick involved if I go anywhere with something like that, however.  --Rob Horning 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support! (oh wait, this isn't a vote!) :P. I'd like to have Wikibooks recording the history of each Wikimedia project, actually... I started a stub with Wikipedia, but I'm afraid I got distracted and haven't had time to go recruiting old-timers on Wikipedia. It would be a shame if the first book on the history of wikipedia wasn't GFDL :). -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I reckon that historical perspectives are a Good Thing, as are discussions about policy. I just don't see why they have to take over the functional pages. The biggest problem this project has is getting stuff done, and spilling discussions about history and policy over onto what would otherwise be functional pages, while an interesting read at times, makes it harder to get things done. I, for one, find it increasingly difficult to penetrate the (growing number of) Staff Lounge pages as they become mired down in shitfights over what was, what is, and what should be.
 * Rob, that book of yours sounds like a great idea. Please don't let us keep you from writing it. Start now! ;-) Webaware talk 22:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

StarCraft
I have finished the transwiki of the StarCraft book to StarCraft so it can be delete now (Votes_for_deletion/StarCraft). -- Prod-You 05:49, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Lost archives
A whole load of VfD discussions is missing from the archives. The last archive page only goes up to 30 Nov 2006, and the current page starts at 19 May. So everything between those dates has been lost (except from previous versions of this page). Does anybody have a clue what's happened? -- Smjg 16:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkout the "subpages" in the archive box - they are now all individually named so that they could be found more easily (got that wrong!) Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 19:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Allowed to vote
Am i able to vote on the main project page, I'm new to wikibooks, if possible please respond on my talk page. SKYNET X7000 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * According to our decision making guidelines, anyone who has an opinion is allowed to voice it. The ultimate decision isn't (ideally) based on the number of votes but rather on compromise and consensus after discussion. Regards. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 16:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Page rename proposal
It would be a fairly big undertaking, but I'd like to suggest that we move this page and sub-pages to a more fitting name. For some time, the consensus has been that whether a page should be deleted should be subject to discussion rather than ballot. I believe that moving this page to a more fitting name would help reduce any confusion that users, unfamiliar with the process may have.

I'm thinking something along the lines of Wikibooks:Deletion discussion, Wikibooks:Nominations for deletion, Wikibooks:Arguments for deletion or something along those lines (not quite as catchy as the current vfd). The large number of sub-pages and links to this page make the process a bit daunting, but nothing a bot and a few dedicated editors couldn't manage. It does, however, necessitate preparing the process properly. --Swift (talk) 07:02, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I dislike the ones using "discussion" and "arguments", on the grounds that they don't do enough to encourage bringing things here. There ought to be some encouragingly official-sounding word in the name.  I suggest
 * Wikibooks:Proposals for deletion
 * because "proposals" seems to me to be less suggestive of voting than either "candidates" or "nominations"; my second choice would be "candidates", because I find that still somewhat less suggestive of voting than "nominations". (I could think of subtler advantages of "proposals" over the other two, but the relation to voting is primary since that's the motivation for choosing a new name in the first place.)  Pi zero (talk) 18:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, those are much better than mine! I find candidates better though as it concentrates on the candidacy of the page, rather than the proposal of the user and is thus less a bit less personal. --Swift (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * A cogent point, sufficient grounds to prefer Candidates for deletion. Pi zero (talk) 17:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Someone could also urge that because deletion is not the only option, deletion shouldn't be in the name either. Just to throw some ideas around:
 * Wikibooks:Book reviews, Wikibooks:Book evaluations, or Wikibooks:Book assessments
 * Wikibooks:Review works, Wikibooks:Evaluate works, or Wikibooks:Assess works
 * Wikibooks:Contested works, Wikibooks:Disputed works, or Wikibooks:Review of uncertain works
 * Wikibooks:Iffy works, Wikibooks:Fishy works, Wikibooks:Problematic works, Wikibooks:Ambiguous works
 * Wikibooks:Please review this work
 * --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it should include deletion because that's the reason it's brought here. If the result is not to delete, then that's fine because it was just a proposal to delete. Then again "Proposal for deletion" could be interpreted as "deletion of a Proposal" (!). So, I prefer Wikibooks:Proposed Book Deletions. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:04, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that not only books come up for deletion. Templates and pages (not even just modules) belong here as well. --Swift (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Which is why the majority of my brainstorming ideas for names uses "works" instead of "book". Works can refer to books, pages, templates, images, etc. "Works" would be better than "Book" if any word like that is to be used at all. I suppose something like "Deletion Candidates" might allow for the double meaning of works proposed for deleted and works that have been previously deleted. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a fan of Proposals for deletion/Deletion discussions - removing the word "vote" should be a priority. However, the main purpose of this page is deletions - calling it almost anything from darklama's selection sould be highly misleading & should be avoided. Pi Zero's and Swift's suggestions would all be acceptable to me. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well merging in Votes for undeletion has been proposed in the past as well. Using deletion in the name would be misleading if both are discussed on the same page. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with that merge is mostly with the size the page would reach (there is a clear link of the two), it would complicate further the understanding of what goes on in here... --Panic (talk) 21:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We get so few undeletions requests that size really wouldn't be a big problem. While I don't think there's any great need to merge the pages, I don't see any problems with doing so under a title such as "Candidates for deletion" (not quite semantically correct, but undeletions are really the exception). --Swift (talk) 03:52, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I share the opinion of Pi zero and the concerns of Darklama (I think he was demonstrating the problem, not really advancing proposals) add I strongly share the aspiration of Mike.lifeguard, to clarify the consensual aspect of the discussions, but this doesn't remove the need to request a "vote" from participants (I rarely engage in bandwagon voting on vfd, I try to add my vote and opinion only when it counts or is needed), but in any case, ultimately any alteration would not only involve a great deal of work but would also break watchlists configurations, ultimately I don't think that the benefits would surpass the downsides, this is a merely a structural change, that will have some impact on practices, I advance that using a better, cleared wording of the introduction text and the vfd tags would be more beneficial and involve less stress.
 * One thing that I feel that needs clarification is precedence of votes, for instance lets say a project/page gets several delete votes and on transwiki vote, since transwiki vote is also a deletion vote a consensual deletion is archived but what about the further work needed for a transwiki, it still is a minority, I think that normally we respect that request and do proceed with the transwiki but this is not clear and someday may fail to be done as always... --Panic (talk) 21:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't attempting to demonstrate anything, I was merely brainstorming. However my brainstorming may demonstrate the difficulty of picking a new name which is be both practical and clear about its purpose. On the other hand a name need not be practical as long as people can understand its purpose. Like Wikibooks:Bonfire could be used. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  22:16, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol Wikibooks:Bonfire that made my day, ROLF... --Panic (talk) 01:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, considering contributors' comments, the best fitting seem to be Deletion discussion and Candidates for deletion. We avoid mentioning "votes" or "books" and any later merger with WB:VFU wouldn't be that semantically incorrect. If there is no serious further input, we can move this over in the coming days.
 * I personally prefer the latter. I think it has a nicer ring to it &mdash; but maybe that's just because it sounds more familiar and has a TLA (Three Letter Acronym). --Swift (talk) 10:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Consistency with common idiom does make recognition easier. CfD looks like "candidate(s) for deletion", doesn't it?  Also coordinates well with Category:Candidates for speedy deletion (which is speedy exactly because discussion isn't required).  Pi zero (talk) 12:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, I hadn't noticed that :-) Only ... do you think it might lead to confusion? --Swift (talk) 13:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have in mind a form that such confusion might take? There would be just one Wikibooks: page (CfD), and just one Category: (CfSD).  Pi zero (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So use Deletion Discussions or Deletion Candidates. What's wrong with Two Letter Acronyms? One less word or letter to type. With candidates for deletion there is only one way to interpret the meaning of the name, that the page is for works to be deleted. With the other two choices the page name could also be easily interpreted to mean that discussions are about works that have already undergone deletion, or that candidates might be works that have already undergone deletion. The two names have the right balance of ambiguity. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  15:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Why mot just call it Deletion Requests? ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "Request" implies that the person nominating the candidate for discussion personally wants the book deleted. Occasionally that isn't the case and it's useful to reduce the possibility that the content authors' feel they are under attack. Both "candidate" and "discussion" are more neutral and imply that nothing will happen without a discussion and/or due process.
 * On a side-note; sorry to all that I haven't gotten 'round to this. Not sure of which I'd pick, I managed to fill my WB time with image copyright issues and user documentation. After I reply to a few topics that have arisen in the wake of recent categorisation activity, I hope to return to this. Since there are loads of related things to be done, the renaming will be a fair amount of work to make sure all links and references are updated too. --Swift (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

If we can settle on a name I won't mind taking care of renaming and other semantics. I used Meta as a role model in bringing in the template for user languages, so I also look to it in determining possible names. They use "requests for deletion" and "requests for undeletion" there. Nothing exciting, but it works well with "requests for permissions" that we already have, maintains the three letter acronym pattern, and removes the implication that the discussion is a vote. Sound good? -- Adrignola talk contribs 03:16, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. Very good. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 03:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Bravo. --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Q&As
Can't we have one big section for all the Q&As? They are staring to make the page hard to navigate. BTW Relationships/Q&A is not nominated. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * . Each RFD ought to be deliberated with attention to its individual merits.  Difficulty of dealing with a large TOC is a disincentive to presenting the community with more RFDs at one time than it can deliberate properly.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, what I mean is start a temporary, level-2 section and let all the Q&As be listed under the level-2 section as level-3 sections. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That's precisely what Pi zero was opposing. There is neither need nor gain in grouping these. --Swift (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Should it be? Since when did we dish out brownie points for RFD nominations? How about we amend that with a new rule that you lose five if you don't provide a policy based reason why the page in question is outside the scope of Wikibooks? --Swift (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Swift, I am a bit confused by the comment above. By "Should it be?", do you mean "Should [ Relationships/Q&A ] be?"  For what it is worth, I am happy with keeping section per each module or each book.  It would also remain consistent with the way we archive things.  To be fair many things that are deleted are not deleted simply because they don't fall under WB:WIW, but rather the community feels the should be deleted.  I think of this as a form of "censoring by consensus".  Thenub314 (talk) 15:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I do feel that RfD pages that don't fall under the WB:WIW but are active is a very damaging proposition. In those cases the RfD is mostly avoidable by simple dialog without alienating or embarrassing the contributor. Even when WB:WIW is broken RfD should be the last step in a failed attempt to request correction. --Panic (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for being terse. Yes, it was a response to what seemed like an implication that the page should be nominated for deletion. At the time, the arguments made against the nature of Q&A and FAQs had been poorly received and I therefore found it ridiculous to nominate yet another one on seemingly the same grounds.
 * I've never held the belief that RFDs could only be made on grounds of violation of policy, but I've been around long enough to see that a good portion of kept pages are the ones where people just don't like something which isn't bothering anyone and aren't open minded enough to see why others would like them kept. Censoring by consensus suffers from the same downsides as any other kind of censoring. Content should be removed because it's harmful, not because it annoys or offends people. But that's a different debate. --Swift (talk) 20:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, it sounds like you and me are of a similar mind about RfD's. My comment about censorship was in response to the question: "How can you justify deleting material if no policy says we should delete it?"  I was just taking a friendly shot at you for being overly litigious, since interpretations of our policies often vary as much as the people here.  But I can see now that wasn't what you meant.  And since things are so easy to misinterpret, let me say this whole paragraph is basically attempting to say it is safe to ignore most of my comments here. Thenub314 (talk) 10:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be up to each book community to defend the existence of such pages. If no opposition if raised I don't think there is a point on keeping the pages (unless they have usable content). A Q&A page loses all usefulness if no one is answering the questions posted there. --Panic (talk) 19:45, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * comment: are we getting off-topic here? I mean, I started this section to talk about one big section housing all the Q&A RfDs. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, Panic's comments are a bit off, but Pi zero opposed your proposal with an argument that you've so far not responded to. I'm inclined to just leave it at my remark that there is neither necessity or any use in grouping these together since I don't think you've done much in the way of arguing your case. I do however understand that it can be frustrating when one's suggestions are brushed off seemingly without much thought so here's a short argument against your proposal:
 * Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose First of all, I fail to see how the page is hard to navigate. There is a hyperlinked table of contents at the top and a history page that lists edits in reverse chronological order so one can see which edits have been added since one visited last (the edits are furthermore generally labelled with the section name so one can see which discussion an edit is contributing to). Most user agents display the page in a straight forward linear fashion so you can scroll up and down the page.
 * Any further navigating around the page would imply that a discussion in one section affected another. While this may happen on occasion in practice when people aren't paying attention, in principle each discussion should be self contained. While common practice is often referenced, the RFD process isn't determined by precedence. Grouping these together would only encourage bad practice.
 * There may be instances where the issues surrounding pages are so similar that they warrant bringing the discussion under one section (yes, I know: it's not what you're proposing &mdash; this point is just to clarify the boundary). Unless you wanted to delete Q&A pages lock, stock and barrel (e.g. because they inherently violate policy or lie outside project scope) these discussions should neither have nor need any grouping. --Swift (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)


 * We don't have enough RfDs to make it worth making the page more "structured". Per Swift, each discussion should be on the merits of the page itself, grouping will just spawn arguments about whether something should or shouldn't be in the group! On a "philosophical" note I don't like these kind of changes at they feel like an attempt to make a WP-esque bureaucracy which I hate. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 21:01, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Transwikis
If I had gotten any movement at Wikiversity:Import, I'd close the discussions on Towards A Better India and Wiki Science as transwikied right now. However, having listed the requests there since August, there has been no response. So for discussions where the community has decided that something doesn't belong here, can we legitimately fall back to removing it from here in cases where the discussion didn't explicitly call for deletion but yet transwiki has not been carried out (explicit or implicit rejection at the destination not of consideration here). Certainly an Impending Doom would be placed on the books to provide a chance for anyone to get a copy if desired, but I wanted to hear others' thoughts on the issue. – Adrignola talk 22:30, 2 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Based on the example of Towards A Better India, evidently a consensus to transwiki does not imply a consensus that if it can't be transwikied it should be deleted. In that discussion, the declared positions (stances?) I see were:  one keep, two transwiki or delete, one transwiki or keep, and one transwiki because "definitely better suited at WV".  That last isn't obviously an "or keep", but isn't a clear "or delete" either.  So it appears that if no transwiki occurs, the discussion doesn't provide a consensus to delete.


 * For Wiki Science there does appear to have been agreement that it's out of scope for Wikibooks, although the number of declared positions was fairly low. --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 3 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Is it not possible to ask Darklama or anyone familiar with the scope of WV if WV wants it fisrt? If not so, then perhaps we could open a sub-discussion where the transwiki to WV option is not allowed. The final decision (keep/delete) will depend on that 'sub-discussion'. Kayau (talk &#124; email &#124; contribs) 01:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Images/Media Files
This image isn't in use since November 2011. How do I nominate it for deletion? WB:FILES, WB:CSD and even WB:RFD doesn't explain how files can be deleted! Under which criteria can a file be deleted? Are at RFD also files allowed? Mabdul (discuss • contribs) 17:40, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Raise it at WB:RFD. However, I wouldn't expect being unused to be a criterion for deletion as it is freely licensed. <font color="#E66C2C">QU <font color="#306754">TalkQu 18:12, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yeah, but it should be replaced with SVG/vector based image, it's orphaned and unlikely to be used and thus it should be deleted. ^^ Mabdul (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)