Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Fictional Warrior Races

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was:  delete. RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Book:Fictional Warrior Races

 * – (View MfD)

Unmaintained Book:, which, as I understand it from are meant to serve as navigational aids to existing bluelinked articles much like the relatively little-used portals and widely used navboxes. Other than a single category tagging using HotCat in the past year, it has been unmaintained since its creation in 2014 (nearly seven years ago). As such, unmaintained books are breeding grounds for vandalism, off-topic discussions, spammy links, and other undesirable activities. Moreover, it's only had 3 pageviews in the past month (which were probably from patrolling bots). Nevertheless, whether from humans or bots, when each subordinate article gets substantially more pageviews than the navigational aid, one has to question the navigational aid's purpose and usefulness. Moreover, it likely fails our criteria for the book space, with the plethora of redlinks. Doug Mehus T · C  17:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - User:Dmehus - I wasn't making a statement about the purpose of books but agreeing with another editor. I will caution that my opinion on another navigational aid, portals, is a subject of controversy that is dividing the Wikipedia community.  In this case, the author hasn't edited in more than four years, and besides this book is in bad quality.  I may submit a separate nomination package of other books by this author, but I won't add them to this nomination because that causes problems.  But this one can be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - The nominator says that the listed articles get more views from humans and bots than this page. That is true, but this page isn't about humans or bots; it is about humanoids.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - As a general note, Books are not intended for use as navigation aids, (although IMHO between lists, SIAs, outlines, categories, portals, navigation templates, indexes etc. we already have too many) instead the purpose was to provide a location for readers to quickly download a pre-organized pdf of articles in a topic area with a snazzy copy-left cover, or to order a print-version of the same through Pedia-press (see here for specifics). I use the past-tense, because per this discussion, a decision was made to archive all of Book space until the pdf render-er could be fixed. Resultantly, all links to Books have been hidden, and there is no way at the moment for readers to find them. I add further that assuming the argument about pageviews was ever valid to begin with, it is certainly not valid now, and would directly contravene the spirit of the RFC decision to archive book space. I also note that the render-er if it is ever fixed will ignore red linked aricles, although those are easily removed any way if undesired, in fact I will do so shortly. For books in deciding too keep/delete we are supposed to assess whether the collection is too broad, too narrow, trivial, non-encyclopedic, or not related to human knowledge. Having so stated, I do net yet have an opinion on whether this particular archive should be retained, but given that it is just a non-reader-facing archive, it almost doesn't matter. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 13:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete The problem with this book is that it's unclear what selection criteria is being used. It seems to have been forked directly from the equivalent category, itself still a messy combination of individual characters, and various humanoid types that in some cases don't have any reliable sources describing them as a "warrior race". It may be peripherally encyclopedic to have a specialized book on this kind of set, but this particular version should be TNT'd. I say weak delete because as I mentioned above it almost doesn't matter given the current status of book-space. 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.