Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-22/Wikipedia-Books

Discuss this story

I don't think that the Wikipedia books must be deleted, because they are useful to some users. Thank you, --Patriot8790 (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Being an employee of PediaPress, I'm sure Headbomb likes Wikipedia-Books too. But like other pages, some of them aren't appropriate for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Some of them aren't even proper Wikipedia-Books, so there should be some deletion process for books. Previously they would go Miscellany for deletion; now there's PROD-like process that can take care of the non-controversial stuff. Reach Out to the Truth 01:29, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Patriot8790 (talk): users that have already made a habit of deleting tons of books are not serving the Wikipedia users or the community at large, because they have mostly a destructive, rather than any constructive role. There should be a strict upper limit, like 6 to 8, of the number of books proposed for deletion by any user so that no Wikipedia user "makes a career" out of erasing book creators' efforts that are useful to the community at large; this is totally counter-productive to the entire Wikipedia books projects. Bci2 10:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstand what this is about. BPROD is for the non-controversial deletion of books. 99%+ of the time, this means books which were created as tests (such as books containing no articles, books which makes no sense, etc...). These books are in theory deletable under WP:CSD#G2, but BPRODs give a one week buffer period so people have the possibility to object, and it also allows users to request undeletion if they weren't around when the book was proposed for deletion.

Likewise restricting users to a certain limit of BPROD is process creep. There's no actual problem with letting people tag 100+ books at a time. I've proposed over 600 books for deletion in the last two weeks (and I'll proposed hundreds more in the next one), and everything went just fine. This is simple cleanup, not "erasing the efforts of book-creators". If there's one guy on Wikipedia who's got the interests of book creators at heart, I certainly hope it's me. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 22:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]