Wikibooks:Requests for deletion - Wikibooks, open books for an open world

Pages and books can be deleted by administrators. These decisions are generally backed by consensus from a discussion on this page under the deletion section. No process is perfect, and as such, pages or books can be nominated for undeletion in this section. The following is the procedure:

1. Locate the page entry in the deletion log or the archived discussion. Some deleted pages have been speedily deleted without discussion.
2. Review the Wikibooks:Deletion policy and Wikibooks:Media. If you can build a fair case on something which wasn't considered before, you can raise the issue here.
3. Please add new nominations at the bottom of the section. Include a link to the archived discussion (or deletion log if there was none) and your rationale for why the page should be undeleted. If the community agrees, the page will be restored.

If you wish to view a deleted module or media file, list it here and explain why. An administrator will provide the deleted module to you in some form - either by quoting it in full, emailing it to you, or temporarily undeleting it. If you feel that an administrator is routinely deleting modules prematurely, or otherwise abusing their tools, please discuss the matter on the user's talk page, or at Administrative Assistance.

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Pages that qualify for speedy deletion do not require discussion. This section is for discussing whether something belongs on Wikibooks or not for all other cases. Please give a reason and be prepared to defend it. Consensus is measured based on the strength of arguments not on numbers. Anyone can participate and everyone is encouraged to do so.

Please add a new request for deletion at the bottom of this section with a link to the page or book in the heading and a justification. Also place the {{rfd}} template at the top of the page you want deleted. If you are nominating an entire book, {{rfd}} goes on the top-level page, but not subpages. Nominations should cite relevant policy wherever possible.

Please format the heading as == [[PAGE]] == in order to let the bot archive it. If there is a subject box, type [[PAGE]] into the subject box.

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Consists of excerpts from third parties. Those from New Scientist, do not appear to be under a compatible licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbrickn (talk • contribs) 07:33, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure it's enough of a violation for deletion? Based on a copyvio comparison, the text seems mostly paraphrased. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Delete The content of this page is entirely quotes and summaries of articles. The opening is a copy-paste quote of the linked Rice University page, the "examples of nanomaterials" are taken from doi:10.1021/es0506509 (or, more likely, from another article summarizing it), and the two paragraphs following that are inaccurate summaries of the (already pop-science) New Scientist articles cited. There's no original content here whatsoever, and I'm not even sure how any of this is related to the overall topic of "the computer revolution" - these articles are about chemistry, not computing.

This entire book is in pretty bad shape, frankly. Everything about it has the look of a class project where each student picked (or was assigned) a topic to write about individually, and their work was combined into a book. The results lack both coherence and quality, and I'm having a hard time seeing how this could ever be fixed short of throwing it all out and starting over. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

After taking another look at the page, I now agree that it at least should be deleted. The content is not useful or coherent, and has issues as described above. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:19, 14 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

This seems to be abandoned book, the only content is largly vacuous. I don't believe it is likely to be extended or worked on because it is both a technical topic, and represents to original author's goals for such a book (graduate level vs undergraduate). Thenub314 (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

It does seem abandoned; the single existing page hasn't been updated since 2018 and the main book page hasn't been updated since 2019. Unless someone quickly decides to pick up on it, I can't really see it staying here at Wikibooks :/ —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello there,

currently I'm working over at the German page, because I have begun to work with a new, more intuitive terminology. My current plan is to first finish the German version and then possibly to translate it. To finish the German version will take at least until the end of this year. Until then, you shouldn't expect any progress. Afterwards, I may feel inclined to pick up the project, depending on my human rights situation. --Mathmensch (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Used for decorative, not educational, purposes: File:Float 13.jpg, File:Grabbed Frame 15.jpg, File:Gandof.jpg, File:Ohalland.jpg, File:Braskascan1.jpg, File:Tidus FFX.png (WB:NFCC#8). — Ирука¹³ 13:54, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Sure, I think I can agree on the removal of these 2005-Fan (discuss • contribs) 12:24, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

The following pages in Basics of fine-art photography seem out of scope because they consist entirely of personal promotion/advertisement for the author's photography:

• Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians II
• Basics of fine-art photography/Lights of Moscow
• Basics of fine-art photography/Ethiopia through the eyes of traveler
• Basics of fine-art photography/On the roads of India
• Basics of fine-art photography/14 days in Mongolia
• Basics of fine-art photography/Egypt and Egyptians III
• Basics of fine-art photography/Hitchhiking across Sudan
• Basics of fine-art photography/January in Japan
• Basics of fine-art photography/Uganda: tribes and civilization
• Basics of fine-art photography/Tribes of Kenya
• Basics of fine-art photography/Afghanistan, 2008

—Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:13, 25 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Frankly, the entire book appears to be a vehicle for the author to promote his own photography. The few sentences of instructional content on pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Creating works in macro photography are practically useless; that one amounts to "to take macro photos, set your camera to macro mode and hold it close to the subject, or read another book for more information". Other pages like Basics of fine-art photography/Interior photography in hobo tours or Basics of fine-art photography/Taking pictures of homeless people provide essentially no information on photography technique at all, and seem to mostly be intended as jumping-off points to showcase more of the author's photos. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:40, 11 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

This book is essentially a compilation of lists and links—I don't think it's actually in-scope here as a book. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.

Seems to be pretty much an encyclopedic article about the Knights Templar, which makes it out of scope; enormous amount of links to enWP and may even just be an import. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:59, 1 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't seem in-scope as a book—just seems like a single page on how to do a specific calculation. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This book was previously nominated for deletion in 2011, but kept largely because of its theoretical potential for improvement. It's now over a decade later, and no real improvement has been made. The book has the following issues:

• A lack of clearly defined educational/instructional scope, structure, or aims overall
• A lack of structure in each existing chapter
• Significant NPOV and lack-of-evidence/citations

I've gone through the book to try to improve it somewhat, but it largely feels like a disorganized dumping ground for a variety of abstract thoughts, many of which are heavily biased. At this point, given the amount of time it has had for improvement and the lack thereof, I don't think it has a place at Wikibooks. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

This book is very important in this day and age. Tolerance between religions is important for world peace. Without tolerance, chaos breaks out in the world. We should promote tolerance between religions. If the good guys keep quiet, the bad guys win. Is that what you want? A better way is to simply add a chapter of yours to the book and contribute your suggestions to world peace and the strengthening of love in the world. @Kittycataclysm Nobody60 (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support deleting as per issues pointed out in nom. @Nobody60, there are kilometers between deleting a bad, biased book and supporting religious intolerance or whatever it is you're accusing the nom of doing. Wikibooks is a project with a definite, reachable and concrete goal, which this book doesn't meet, never met and probably would never meet. --YuriNikolai (discuss • contribs) 02:10, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Delete per nom. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete . Not only is this material not presented from a neutral point of view, it's not even a mainstream religious POV. Much like Developing A Universal Religion (also up for deletion), the goal of this text appears to be to create and promote a new syncretic religious movement, complete with its own new beliefs and practices; this is very much outside the scope of Wikibooks. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:24, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Out of scope here; material should be hosted at Wiktionary (I've suggested it there). —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any content in this dictionary should be already be at wiktionary:Wiktionary:Requested entries (Kashubian)/Kashubian Dictionary, where we will be able to slowly make entries for these. Vininn126 (discuss • contribs) 21:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Out of scope; seems to be an incomplete translation of the bible into a conlang. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned, unclear scope, little content, unclear path for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for two decades without any development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned, very little meaningful content, unclear path for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned, little to no meaningful content, unclear scope or potential for development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:05, 8 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete - an earlier version of this page was imported to Wikiversity as Portal:Linguistics (and subsequently edited into oblivion). The followup edits here aren't needed at WV. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Book is un/under-developed and abandoned, and the scope/potential for development is somewhat unclear to me. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 19 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned with non-English. Not belonging under Annotated Republic of China Regulations/Regulations for Road Traffic Signs, Markings, and Signals/1989, that Taiwanese administrative regulation since 1989 would not contain such a manual.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete per above —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Has only one page (introduction) with little content. It has been abandoned now for almost 20 years with no development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Extremely minimal content and abandoned for almost 20 years. Was previously nominated for deletion in 2006 but kept on the grounds that it could be expanded—clearly this has not happened. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Fiction / original research - a conlang being (very slowly) created by the author of the book.

The following books are closely related to that project and should be deleted as well:

• NiwEnglisc
• Þat englisce Alphabet
• Lernung þer Stafræwe
• Þe ettbære Garden

as well as Biblioþeke, which has already been nominated for deletion.

  Delete all per the above. I can find no evidence of the conlang outside Wikibooks and this sole author. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned how-to book on a topic which is no longer technologically relevant (Windows 7 support ended in 2020), and which thus has no real potential for development.

  Delete Abandoned, little content, no further potential per the above. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yet another abandoned, underdeveloped book on an obsolete operating system. (Mac OS X Leopard was released in 2007, and has been unsupported since 2011.) If there were more content in this book, it could possibly be refactored into a version-independent book about macOS, but there's effectively nothing here. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete . If it were more fleshed out, it could be kept as archival. However, there's so little there. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade, undeveloped, very little content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete - 3DTin was a web application which shut down in 2016, so this book no longer serves any purpose, and certainly isn't going to be expanded. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for many years; consists of only one page for one theorem; no introduction or scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; consists of one page with very little content; no introduction or scope —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for many years; very little actual content; only real contributor was an IP whose last edit was in 2015. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for at least a decade; consists of main page only; almost no meaningful content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; consists of main page only; almost no meaningful content; unclear scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

One page only; abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content; scope unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:40, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete . HP OpenView no longer exists as a product (and its successor HP Network Management Center has been discontinued as well!); neither does HP's certification exam for it. There's certainly no purpose in writing a new guide for a nonexistent exam for a obsolete product. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned for ~1 decade; little to no meaningful content; one paragraph in entire book; scope unclear —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Not particularly in scope for the book as it is; content is not particularly meaningful, educational, helpful, or well-developed (e.g. what does it mean for red blood cells to "helps in structure of the body"?) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete . Even if the strange or outright wrong statements were removed (like describing a cell as "a small particle or organism", or implying that red and white blood cells are the only types of cell!), this sort of very basic explanation would be more at home in an introductory text on biology, not a text on biochemistry which assumes familiarity with these topics. (And indeed, there are much better explanations in books like Biology, Answering the Big Questions of Life/Cells.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 31 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Seems to be out of scope, since Wikibooks does not host fiction. –Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; only contains main page with little content; scope not well-defined. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; very little content; unclear scope/path to completion —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; one chapter only, which contains only a handful of sentences. Not enough content and no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Both Security+ Certification/Threats and Vulnerabilities and Security+ Certification/Network Security seem to be deprecated per @Tule-hog's recent overhaul; moreover, the pages in question seem to consist entirely of outlinks to Wikipedia. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:32, 3 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

• MCSE Server 2003 Certification Core Exams (exam 70-290 retired July 2013)
• Microsoft Certified IT Professional (exam 70-444 retired June 2011; exam 70-450 retired July 2015)
• Microsoft Certified Professional Developer (exams 70-526, 70-528, 70-529, 70-547, 70-548 retired June 2011; exams 70-290, 70-536 retired July 2013)

These books all correspond to Microsoft certification exams which were retired in 2011-2015, and consist almost entirely of lists of course objectives copied from official course materials. There's almost no original educational content in any of these three books, and it's highly unlikely that they're going to be improved, since the certification exams they correspond to are no longer offered.

(Reference for the exam retirement dates is: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/credentials/support/retired-certification-exams)

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 00:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete per the above; additionally, some of these have very little content at all. Some pages may be candidates for speedy deletion. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Little to no meaningful content, abandoned >1 decade. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

•   Delete per nom. Nothing particularly salvageable from this. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 10:07, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very little meaningful educational content; seems like opinion at most? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:45, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very little content at all, no outline or potential for development; abandoned for years. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Out of scope at Wikibooks since this is already completely covered by Wiktionary. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Comment English-Arabic dictionary/Colors in Arabic gets a nontrivial amount of traffic (~50 views/day). It'd be nice if we could at least preserve this as a redirect to an equivalent resource. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned 17 years; consists only of paltry introduction. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little to no meaningful content. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; undeveloped (single page only); no scope or plan for expansion/future development. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:46, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little to no meaningful content; mostly a few section headers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

No meaningful content; chapter list only; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:50, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; very little content; unclear scope; no path forward for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:52, 17 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete - readers would be much better off with Valgrind's own quick start guide (which is even freely licensed). Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Original research/soapbox/NPOV; abandoned >1 decade; main page only —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete - out of scope religious/philosophical content similar to #Developing a Universal Religion, but less developed. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 07:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content; no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned; main page only; no meaningful content; no plan for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned; little to no meaningful content; one page only with little content; no path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Orphaned page; little to no meaningful content; abandoned >1 decade —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Very little content and no substantial edits since its creation in 2021. Even if developed, it's unclear how it would differ from w:SpaceX Starship. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete per listed reasons. It has almost no content and is abandoned. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Scope unclear; abandoned with no plan for development; little to no meaningful content; most pages qualify for speedy anyway. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Main page only; abandoned >1 decade; little meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; little to no meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; main page only; little meaningful content —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:24, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Abandoned >1 decade; little content; unclear path for development —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 7 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Merging with the other Epicurus page.

Merging with the other Epicurus page.

Network+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

Security+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

A+ Certification moved and updated at Wikiversity.

De-duplicating work across Wikimedia. Subpages should all be deleted as well. Might be worth leaving a redirect to WV for future users. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 21:02, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I centralized at Wikiversity since the projects (as of now) are compendiums of links and resources based on the listed objectives of each exam, sometimes with explicitly suggested 'activities'. Very little in the way of 'book'-like exposition. Tule-hog (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 15 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Wiki Assistant
• User Page Builder

  Inexplicably, the links on the main page of this book all point to pages under w:User:Hazel45onnie/User Page Builder on the English Wikipedia. I'm nominating those pages for deletion on enwiki as a separate process (here).

• WikiverSuite/Wikiversant/Gunport Builder Demo 1
• Wiki Tutorial

  Some of the internal links in this book are written as if the book is named Tutorial instead of Wiki Tutorial. You may have to use Special:Prefixindex/Wiki Tutorial to read through the whole thing.

These books were all generated using Wikiversal, a third-party wiki editing tool written by User:Planotse which is no longer downloadable. Many of them contain broken internal links or other outdated content (like references to Wikiversity being a subproject of Wikibooks), and the HTML-heavy markup generated by Wikiversal makes them unreasonably difficult to edit.

(As as aside, the markup used for these "presentations" is completely broken on the mobile site, e.g. [1]. For some reason, the forward/back buttons are invisible, making it impossible to navigate from page to page.)

The first three books are all instructions on how to use Wikiversal itself. Since it's no longer available, they are of no use. The fourth, while described as a "Wiki tutorial", primarily instructs users to use Wikiversal to build pages on the wiki; its main page should probably be redirected to Using Wikibooks as a much more comprehensive resource.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:44, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It isn't inexplicable that these pages and links are on the English Wikipedia. The spammers who developed these pages were primarily trying to peddle software for use on the English Wikipedia. Their pages on the English Wikipedia are also pending deletion as misusing Wikipedia for web hosting. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on the name and some of the user's (now deleted) activity on Wikiversity, I think the software was actually intended primarily for use on Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. Why they decided to host some of its documentation on Wikipedia is a mystery. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:52, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

It isn't worth trying to explain the behavior of spammers. Sometimes the explanation is stupidity and greed. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 23:05, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

I haven't yet looked at the deletion request here. I am primarily an English Wikipedia editor, just as User:Omphalographer is primarily a Commons editor. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:46, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Delete All - Spam. These books were created twelve years ago to peddle software to new users. This was an abuse of Wikimedia for commercial purposes. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 18:51, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

Much like the Wikiversal pages nominated above, this book is documentation for a piece of self-authored software by User:Planotse which is no longer available for download. I can't find any substantial references to this software anywhere online outside of this book itself, so it seems highly unlikely to be useful to anyone.

Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete per the above. If the software is not currently available and was never widely available or notable previously, I don't see why keeping it is useful, even for historicity. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

• Delete - This is more spam by a spammer. Robert McClenon (discuss • contribs) 23:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No textual content at all, just a couple of tables of data. I can't find any other information online about this game; for all we know, it may not even exist. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete as stated above. The content is so minimal, and the scope is not defined. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

No content, just a table of contents and a few pages with mostly empty headings. Since this book is intended for a specific target audience, it's unlikely that other users can contribute meaningfully. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:11, 21 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Delete per the above. It's been abandoned for several years, and there is almost no content at all. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:17, 22 September 2024 (UTC)Reply