Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikibooks

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 keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion aside from the nominator. AFD is not for cleanup. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Just because it's a wiki project doesn't mean it's notable. All the sources that I reviewed are primary sources, data table of activity, passing mentions. The only article that seems to talk in any material way about wikibooks does so from a Wikipedia centric view and how it's complementary [1] I don't feel like this article will survive a 3 reliable reference rule audit. Greatder (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Internet. Greatder (talk) 01:47, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Have you done a WP:BEFORE or checked Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikiquote (2nd nomination)? Its notability is tied to the Wikimedia Foundation, we could consider a List of Wikimedia Foundation projects. IgelRM (talk) 03:51, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@IgelRM Wikiquote just about passes notability guideline with quite a lot of article about it and research paper mentions. Unlike wikibooks, which I have not seen much wide use or reporting of. Greatder (talk) 14:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It makes sense to have an article about each of the WMF sister projects. Consult with the Wikibooks community about improving the article. -- Jtneill - Talk 10:16, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jtneill Does the article in current form and references exist? I do not think so. Just because something is affiliated with WMF doesn't mean it's notable. It should be reinforced by multiple reliable secondary sources. Notability is not inherited. Greatder (talk) 14:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's definitely third-party discussion of the project. For example. here's an article from an IEEE publication about the project, its social structure, and its potential future impact on the textbook industry. Lubal (talk) 18:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lubal Thanks! This seems like a really high quality source that I feel is enough to establish notability for this article. (If and when it is properly referenced in the article of course) Greatder (talk) 18:55, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure the association article grants full notability, but I think an AFD has limited potential to improve things anyway. IgelRM (talk) 10:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really just offered that as an example, a Google Scholar search for "wikibooks" has a whole bunch of things that look promising. Lubal (talk) 15:05, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per... I don't know. Let's try obvious common sense. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:50, 14 March 2024 (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.