Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book

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

The result was delete. Clear consensus that this is not suitable for a wikipedia article per WP:NOTHOWTO. Michig (talk) 13:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RŌBLOX Lua Scripting Book

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable book, and content is uncyclopediac as well (as if this page is the book...WP is not a how-to manual). DMacks (talk) 19:35, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I wanted to speedy delete it but none of the criteria quite fits. The editor was even creating interactive answers to the quizzes with separate articles for each answer. I've never said this before at AfD, but this really doesn't need to remain open for the full 7 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTHOWTO; unreferenced; no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 20:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete*, WP:NOTHOWTO/etc. _{*Let's have a little WP:IAR...} —Theopolisme 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're to have LUA foisted upon us, the least we could do is IAR and allow some information concerning the use of the language. Not like it's harming anything, is it? --Nouniquenames 05:11, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please apply some common sense and thought, Nouniquenames. We don't put internal pages for editors in the encyclopaedia itself, and you should know this by now. We've had separation between the product itself and the help and project areas for almost eleven years. Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
move to the Wikibooks platform. I'm not sure if redirects are permitted to there? Stuartyeates (talk) 19:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Interwiki redirects do not work, thus it would be a soft redirect which we do not do. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 00:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 01:00, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete for the fact that it's copied from a Roblox Wikia tutorial site. Why on Earth was this relisted? Statυs (talk) 09:03, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd close the discussion as delete myself, it being quite obvious from xyr user page that TheEpicQ (talk · contribs) has mistaken Wikipedia for a general document storage service, equally obvious that this isn't an encyclopaedia article, nor intended to be one, nor even a guide intended to help Wikipedians with Wikipedia, and obvious that the result would be in line with both consensus and the Five Pillars. But then people might accuse me of favouring Wikipedia:Guide to Scribbling, which I wrote (in a project namespace, notice, Nouniquenames). ☺ Uncle G (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikibooks if they're willing to accept it, otherwise speedy delete per above. Legoktm (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly falls under WP:NOT. --Odie5533 (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.