Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Book:Human Anatomy

 __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:  no consensus. This may be the lead-up to an overall discussion about the fate of the Book namespace, but in terms of this individual discussion I think it's fair to close as no consensus.  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Book:Human Anatomy

 * – (View MfD)
 * CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

This "book" is a collection of lists with one or two articles. There is really no benefit to anyone and I don't feel that it meets our quality criteria here. Additionally, it is neglected with no significant recent edits since 2013. Readers would be better off having it deleted. Additionally, the functionality exists for readers to make their own books if required. Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep No policy based reason given for deletion. What quality criteria are you citing? This is already part of an archived project and as such the page is archived as well. Not seeing an explicit reason for deletion. Sulfurboy (talk) 01:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think I've made some clear arguments above as to my reasons for deletion, however as a general editor I am unfamiliar with specific deletion criteria for books. My main concern is that random internet viewers may stumble upon this random collection of articles and find it confusing or deterring, (2) it is likely to become out of date because it is so neglected, and (3) it will soak up time on maintenance etc tasks that it really doesn't warrant. I just don't see what the need for it to be around still is? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sorry, but not really. Why would you nominate a namespace page when you don't know the deletion criteria surrounding it? For your three concerns: 1) A confusing page is not a reason for deletion under any criterion I know of (with the exception of outright gibberish) 2) This applies to literally millions of things on Wikipedia and also is typically not a reason for deletion. 3) What maintenance tasks are having their resources sucked up by this? How is that a reason for deletion? Sulfurboy (talk) 05:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Well, books have no obvious purpose at this time, but there is no obvious harm to this book. Waiting for a statement from User:CFCF or a clarifying statement from User:Tom (LT).  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand the purpose of the Book namespace. Books suggests to me that it is a halfbacked experiment.  Maybe all old books should be deleted, like drafts via G13.  If you really want your custom Book of old versions of selected articles for a project-related purpose, keep it in your userspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I would not call this a “book”. I think this is a WP:Outline.
 * Delete or userfy. Probably “delete or userfy” every Book namespace page. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - Deletion or userification of all book namespace pages is a WP:VPT discussion and not a precedent that can be set by MfD. You can find the discussion about the sunsetting of books at Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_176. Also, no offense man, but if you "do not understand the purpose" of a particular namespace, then maybe don't vote in an MfD about it Sulfurboy (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Precedents absolutely can and do get set at MfD.
 * I do not understand the purpose of the Book namespace, true, which is why I have not !voted on them for a few years now. I am begging for someone to give me an answer.  My strengthening suspicion is that they serve no purpose, that they are a WMF experiment.  Certainly, the description page doesn’t give a justification for its creation or ongoing existence.
 * This book is not even a book. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree that this page is likely to do a disservice to readers. Do readers ever find it? It averages 5 views per day over the last 90 days . Is that a worry, five views per day could be all crawlers and bots.
 * Is this book any worse than other books. Is the concern over the namespace?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - We already had one war over a namespace that many editors don't know the purpose of. That didn't prevent some of us, including User:SmokeyJoe, from !voting in that war.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I refrained from !voting on Portal deletions for about ten years, but eventually I took the trouble to investigate every ostensible purpose and found them all lacking justification for the downsides, for most Portals, but not for the whole namespace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - I think that User:SmokeyJoe is right that this book is no worse than many others, and that there are many abandoned books that never had a plausible purpose. Like portals, books are outward-facing, meant to be seen by readers as well as editors.  I agree that we don't know what the original purpose of books is or was.  (With portals, we know that there never was agreement on what the purpose or purposes of portals was.)  The author of this book has made one edit in the past three years.  User:CFCF, who tweaked this book, edits actively, and has not commented on the book.  A feature to support the printing of books has been disabled.  This book does not seem to have a purpose.  Other books probably do not have purposes either, and should be deleted if they have no maintainer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well said. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - If the above comments apply to all books and not just this one in particular, then I would rather seem them handled as a class elsewhere (where consensus for or against them as a continuing concept can be established) than individually or as a group here (where pages are merely kept or deleted). — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It is already marked as historical. I don't think the whole discussion is about this particular book, but about all pages in the namespace, so this MfD does not look appropriate. --MarioGom (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CrazyBoy826 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Because this page, like all pages in the Book: namespace, is marked as historical, there is no chance of it doing a disservice to readers, and no policy or guideline has been given for its deletion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:00, 8 May 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.