I'm risking a flaming here but this book is in a bit of a mess due to past disagreements. I'm nominating it for deletion but I doubt it will be a popular choice but do we have any other suggestions? Xania ^talk 01:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Support -- This book has been stagnant for years, and possibly incorporates material from non-GFDL texts. The primary author (User:Panic2k4) has been arguing with new contributors about making alterations to the book, has insinuated that his contributions give him the right of editorial control (or "responsibility", as he puts it), and has hinted that he might revoke the GFDL release of his contributions if things don't go his way. The book as it stands is really just a many-paged stub, and given the interest in the topic on wikiversity, I think a fresh start for the book might both yield a better result and help us build a community of programming authors. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 01:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral, since WK is trying to look into the copyrights. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - There have been issues with the potential that it might contain copyrighted material which is not been released under the GFDL, and difficulty in determining what exactly was used from what. For these reasons I believe there is no way to determine which specific parts of the book should be removed. Additionally there have been problems with a contributor who has made threatening remarks and taken actions which threaten to undermine any continued contributions to the book. I believe its in Wikibooks' best interest to delete the book in its entirety and to start from scratch. --darklama 02:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I would be willing to start working on it from scratch and I believe there are others who may be willing as well. --darklama 02:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - or is that "Support"? - whilst there is in fact some good content in this book already, I have to trust the comments made above and support this deletion. C++ has a strong enough body of users expert in its ways to allow the possibility of good authors resurrecting this book without the many issues that have plagued it to date. (I might even help out, although my C++ experience is all from last century, and I have other tasks to complete first) Webaware ^talk 02:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - in light of Whitenight's investigations, it would seem that there is no basis to the allegation of plagiarism (now). Webaware ^talk 21:43, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. User:Panic2k4, despite his threats, may not remove his contributions as per Section 9 of the GFDL. This much, therefore, is a non-issue. Also, any accusations that a text is a copyvio should be backed up with evidence. We don't normally delete texts here that might be copyvios, we instead ask for evidence (usually through a google test, although that doesnt prove which version of the text came first), or a request from an author who's work has been infringed. Without proper evidence, we shouldn't declare this to be a copyvio: it sets a dangerous precident that things could be deleted on any unfounded accusation of copyright violation, and I am not willing to set that precident. Furthermore, despite the issues with Panic in the past, we do not:
  • Delete stub books, especially books that have structure, or books that have active contributors (and this book has attracted a number of contributors)
  • Delete books out of revenge against the authors of that book.
  • Delete books that conform to WB:WIW, or delete books without proper justification from WB:DP.

Issues with panic should not even be mentioned on this page, and any other accusations of violations or inadequacy should be backed up with evidence and policy justifications. Without such evidence, looking only at the text of this book, I can see no reason to delete it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• As a brief addendum, I have been having a discussion with panic in which many of the "threats" originated. It is my opinion that no actual threats were made, we were talking about hypothetical situations involving copyrights. I do not believe that Panic has threatened, nor intends, to try and remove his contributions from this book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - My vote to delete is not out of bad faith (if thats what your implying). Rather concerns with past mentions of Plagarism that were not looked into at the time by administrators and seeking the opinion of another current administrator on that and looking into other authors that have been listed in the book as having given permission to use their work under the GFDL, the difficulty in determining one way or another and his shared concern about the matter. If someone such as yourself is willing to look into the matter and try to resolve that issue. I'll recant that reason for deleting the book. --darklama 03:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I am contacting the authors listed and determining whether any of the claims of copyvios are substantiated. If there are no copyvios to be found in this book, I dont think there is any policy justification for deleting this book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Update. I have contacted the first two authors, Scott Wheeler and Steve Ferg, and both sent back timely replies stating that they have released content under the GFDL or compatable licenses, and that they do not view inclusion of their material on the C++ book as being copyvios. I will post links to the content in question within the next few days. The third author, Ivor Horton, cannot be tracked down, and I am unable to verify if he has donated any material to the C++ book, and if so what material originated from him. Given the fact that the first two authors check out so quickly and readily, it is my recommendation that it be taken at Panic's word that the third author's contributions, if any, are likewise free from violations. I realize that this is not going to be a popular request, but rest assured that it is not one that I make lightly. Take this as you will, my vote will stay as "keep". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, if it is really low on quality, the correct way is not to completely delete it... With the ongoing mess already, the timing of this nom could be better. --Cat out 02:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strongly Keep - From a legal point of view, copyright violations need to be eliminated such as would happen anywhere else on Wikibooks, and that content does not require a VfD. I guess I'm confused as to what the problem is here. I know that Panic is now trying to revoke permission, but that issue was dealt with a very long time ago when the disclaimer was added that "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered released under the GNU Free Document License". There is legal preceedence that this is the case, and the only reason you should doubt that the content is a copyvio is if you can find a published version that predates its inclusion into Wikibook (such as using the Google test or find a book, or the copyright owner wants the content removed). Retroactively asking for the content to be removed is too late after you press the "save page" button.

  Besides all this, I can't imagine that a Wikibook about C++ Programming can possibly be considered inappropriate for Wikibooks. While I may agree that some overhaul of the content is in order, that is something to be worked out within the talk pages of that book. The VfD page here is mainly concerned with if the subject matter is inappropriate or if there really is a need for this content. It is particularly sad that once upon a time we had two different C++ Programming Wikibooks, and it appears as though much of the current mess is due to trying to merge the two books together, for whatever reason that was back elsewhen. --Rob Horning 17:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - Since Whiteknight got confirmation from 2 out of 3 authors about contents being GFDL'ed I recant my previous reasons for deletions. However, I agree with SB_Johnny's view of the quality of the book, many-page stubs and given potential interest in the subject, I believe a fresh start would be beneficial. The mess, as Robert put it, may very well be due to trying to merge two books together. I think books have been deleted for similar reasons in the past. I'm willing to admit this may be better left as a decision of those working on the book though rather then fit for VfD. --darklama 00:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - This book needs to be improved, not deleted. Copyright violations should be removed when we find them. --xixtas ^talk 00:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I think it is a dangerous precedent to delete an entire book over an edit dispute(especially one with this much information; yes there are a lot of stubs but there is also a lot of useful information). The only time this should occur is if there is some fundamental problem with the content itself that cant be resolved. While it is alleged that one person is trying to exercise undue control over the content, the content that exists there is surely better than nothing and would be a good base on which to either rewrite or expand the existing infrastructure... I don't think that the current structure is unfixable but then again I dont know much about the topic or how it should logically be organized. The aforementioned GFDL issues are, as mentioned, not issues, it's made pretty clear in the license itself. I will rescind this vote if it is found that there are significant copyvios but it doesn't appear that there are at least from the initial investigations. As far as the merge goes, I don't know much about that, but we should definitely only have one book on a single topic (unless they have significantly different audiences or focuses or something like that; did those two?) Mattb112885 02:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep: We seem, at this time, to have no known copyright problems. While there are a number of stubs, they make up a small proportion of the material. The material needs work, but is still one of the better free, online tutorials on C++. If we can get past the current/ongoing mess (which isn't closely related to the content), it would not take too much effort to make this into a good text, and it seems that there would not be a shortage of volunteers. -- James Dennett 04:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)