Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Unsolved archive

No idea what to make of this. It has been around since 2004 and was apparently intended for VfD then but I cannot find it in any archive. It seems to me to be inappropriate for WB. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sharp eyed Iamunknown spotted that the VfD arc is actually on the talk page (keep an eye on him!). I wouldn't call it conclusive so lets see what happens this time --Herby ^{talk thyme} 16:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Part of this book (OK only one part) is highly developed and apparently was a former book of the month. It has potential if only someone would help save it. Xania 22:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Consciousness Studies is a separate book. --Swift 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No meaningful content and is going nowhere (and isn't supposed to according to the original contributor]). The VfD discussion on the talk page seems to refer to w:Unsolved problems in biology, not Unsolved archive or Unsolved problems in biology and all the comments on the talk page have timestamps predating the wikibook creation. It seems that the book was created as an archive for whatever reasons. This is, of course, unnecessary since everything is stored in the history. Furthermore it is a violation of the GFDL since it was copied without copying the history of past contributors. --Swift 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per User:Swift. Good detective work, all! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Sorry to use your precious electrons. Feel free to delete the page. --JWSurf 05:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per User:Swift. --Panic 18:36, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This was a very, very early experiment on Wikibooks back well before anybody here had any idea what Wikibooks even could be, and in a sense I might want to keep it around to clearly demonstrate that Wikibooks wasn't exclusively for the development of textbooks, as some revisionist historians might try to claim. I have seen this page before, and considered it a sort of quaint sideshow to Wikibooks. Comments about dealing with the history tab and other features of MediaWiki software notwithanding, there were legitimate reasons to create this page all so many years ago. Transwiki standards were non-existent and MediaWiki was quite primitive to use when this page was created, nor were naming standards established for Wikibooks and subpages weren't available. All this said, however, I don't see the reason for maintaining this page. The only possible alternative is to perhaps move the page to Unsolved problems in biology/Archive, but that is only a suggestion. This "page" isn't needed. --Rob Horning 19:56, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for a very interesting comment. I would argue that if we want to leave some historical evidence, then an annal — something like Wikibooks:History would be interesting — could be better (or, at least, an important complement) since anyone looking for this type of content would have great difficulty finding it and understanding the background of it. The former could, however, be made easier by tagging it like Help:Textbook planning and categorizing.

  As for your "possible alternative", I think it would be a good compromise if anyone wants this kept. Actually, this is so good an idea that I'm considering changing my vote. --Swift 22:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Given these comments, I would strongly ask that the article be archived at Wikibooks:History as Swift suggested. I have found it really difficult coming back to Wikibooks after a year-long absence. I've been trying to keep up on current events, understand why past events happened the way they did, and it is tough. This could be very useful for me and for others who feel the insane need to understand everything they possibly can. *sigh* Thanks, Iamunknown 17:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Very confused. Something ain't right here. The writing style is similar to Unsolved_problems_in_biology, and that page links to that book as well. Perhaps there should be a whole VfD for the book, but a VfD for what seems to be a single page that didn't follow naming policy doesn't really seem... right. Basically, delete if this is a book. Keep if this is part of Unsolved problems in biology --Dragontamer 22:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As I tried to explain, this is similar because it is the "archived version" of a transwikied article from Wikipedia. Your confusion is reasonable unless you understand the historical context that it comes from, which is why the links to this article are so important to look at. --Rob Horning 15:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per everybody. Kellen ^T 16:21, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]