- 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. ✗ plicit 04:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Book:Full Form
Two link book with only VHF omnidirectional range and VOR/DME as links. No idea what the connection between these and "Full form" is. Fun fact: This is somehow the most viewed Book on wikipedia by far with over 20% of the views for the entire namespace. -- Trialpears ( talk) 12:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Keep don't see why it needs to be deleted. —
csc
-1 18:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Arccosecant In contrast to almost all other namespaces handled at MfD books are supposed to be user facing. This makes the standard required to keep significantly higher than for drafts or user pages where I would fully agree with your rationale. In fact books even have their own form of proposed deletion at
WP:BOOKPROD. Do you see any conceivable use of this page? --
Trialpears (
talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Trialpears The included articles are related to one another, and I suppose "full form" could have some technical meaning. It is, for whatever reason, highly viewed—see
pageviews in march and april—and if vandalism is the problem, it should be sent to
WP:RFPP. —
csc
-1 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Arccosecant Yes it screams some type of anomaly. The book Why would this one random book have over 12x more views than the second most viewed Wikipedia Book? Why does the daily page views on this page range from 16 to 1,754? I've tried to find what "full form" possibly could mean and its not mentioned in either of the articles and googles first few pages finds nothing useful. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Trialpears The included articles are related to one another, and I suppose "full form" could have some technical meaning. It is, for whatever reason, highly viewed—see
pageviews in march and april—and if vandalism is the problem, it should be sent to
WP:RFPP. —
csc
-1 19:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
-
Arccosecant In contrast to almost all other namespaces handled at MfD books are supposed to be user facing. This makes the standard required to keep significantly higher than for drafts or user pages where I would fully agree with your rationale. In fact books even have their own form of proposed deletion at
WP:BOOKPROD. Do you see any conceivable use of this page? --
Trialpears (
talk) 19:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Weak Delete - This book appears to serve no intended purpose, but its accidental purpose is that it is a frequent target for vandalism. The benefit of getting rid of the target for vandalism is slight but is enough. Robert McClenon ( talk) 18:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Seems to be confused for something or another else, and the book as it stands doesn't seem to relate to the phrasing either. For those kinds of page views, you'd expect much more content on the page, so there's something fishy going on. As it happens, having only 2 pages in a book is also basically useless. If they relate as well as suggested, they'd have trivial links in their pages. -- Izno ( talk) 20:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete and Salt. "Full form" seems to be a phrase used in Indian English to mean something along the lines of "the expansion of an acronym". That would seem to explain why the book has attracted the attention of so many Indian IP's, and has also made it a target for spammers pushing links to their online dictionaries (e.g. This kind of account) Since the book as it stands isn't much use for the reasons outlined in the OP (only 2 pages) I think it would be best to delete this and salt the title to prevent accumulation of more spam. 192.76.8.91 ( talk) 23:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Delete as a useless book with only two pages. ƒirefly ( t · c ) 08:17, 6 May 2021 (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.