Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/2006 Merrimack Town Meeting Season Voters Guide

2006 Merrimack Town Meeting Season Voters Guide
Seems to be someone's personal project that they needed webspace for. Could be instructional, but it seems a little too specific and personal to be here. Thought I'd let some voting decide if it should stay. -Matt 22:25, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * This was voted upon a few weeks ago. I'm removing the tag, considering that didn't end in a consensus. Karmafist 04:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I listed this, which is Karmafist's project, for speedy deletion immediately after its creation on similar grounds to Matt, together with it clearly not being a textbook within Wikibook's remit. The speedy deletion tag was replaced by a VFD tag, but we didn't proceed to a vote as the article had not existed for at least 7 days. It's right that we now discuss this again, so I have replaced the VfD tag. After the further development, it is even clearer to me that this is not a textbook, and as it is about one town's election that is to be held next month, it is too specific, has no lasting value and is not a textbook. Delete, Jguk 07:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I disagree that it has no lasting value- those who do not remember the past are doomed to repeat it.  While its not a textbook, that is not and never has been a requirement of this site.  It is nonfiction, which is a requirement.  The fact that its based on a specific locale is also not a reason to delete it-  many of our books are of interest to only specific countries, usually the US.  This is violating no Wikibooks policy.  On top of that, I find it an interesting project-  I'd like to see how it turns out, and wether its useful to the people of Merrimack.  --Gabe Sechan 18:00, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep - While I might agree that this should be merged into the Voter's Guide or perhaps as suggested by Karmafist into a more general guide to politics of Merrimack, there is absolutely no reason to remove this content. Being content of a very local nature should not ever be a criteria here.  If I were to write a Wikibook about the plants and animals in the Grand Canyon, on Mt. Rushmore, or perhaps a canyon within walking distance of my home, I don't think it should be removed either.  Books of that nature are not only useful, but are prized in academic circles because sometimes that is the only authoritative content on a subject that specific.  While a general interest bookstore might not carry content like that, it is something you would find in a University library and IMHO is precisely the kind of thing that Wikibooks should be about.  NPOV complaints may be a valid reason to complain about the content, but I fail to see that being an issue here at all.  This is a good faith effort to add content to Wikibook that also exists already in other forms.  It is also very premature to even add a VfD in this case as the author still has barely recovered from the previous VfD that was stricken down.  This is not a way to treat brand new contributors to Wikibooks.  BTW, WB:DP says one month before a VfD.  Look it up.  --Rob Horning 18:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep and possibly Evolve. Ok, since we're having the vote, I might as well add something -- this could be the starting point for a Wikibook on Merrimack politics as a whole, an incredibly textured and deep subject going back over 200 years and continuing on to this day that even most people in my town don't realize. I hope to get down to the library soon and add information from prior Deliberative Sessions and Elections as well as other political topics having to do with the political past, present and future of my town to this current Wikibook. Karmafist 19:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep To solve the problem of "too specific", I want to keep this book, so we can encourage the creation of similar books for other minor cities. --Kernigh 04:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - one issue I have with this which the "keep" voters have not addressed is that this is a voter's guide for an election in April. After then it will have very limited, if any, value. That is the limited scope is not just to one town, but to a very specific time period that is nearly up. In direct response to Kernigh, I disagree - I would not like to see wikibooks become host to hundreds and hundreds of short books about elections in small towns, Jguk 12:16, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that although the "issues" will be over by the end of 2006, the town of Merrimack will still be there. And they will still have elections next year and for years in the future.  The #1 point I was trying to make earlier is that it should not be a VfD about having content about a small town, which is what all the arguments seem to be about.  A discussion of voter guides IMHO is much more relevant, but that would presume a VfD about Voter's Guide instead, not just a guide to a small town's election.  If voter guides are going to be allowed, I fail to see the problem with having hundred or even thousands of very short books or modules about every small town in the world.  If you can find people to write them, why not?  I don't think that there should be hundred of stubs, but if some real content has been developed, it just adds value to Wikibooks.  As far as organization of that content within Wikibooks, perhaps they could all be grouped together as one book, as I mentioned earlier.  And they must maintain NPOV guidelines.  Just like discussion pages like this one, it would be reasonable to preserve older voting guides in an archival format, and something Wikimedia practices can deal with including page protection to keep vandals from messing with them.  --Rob Horning 12:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because the vote occurs in April does not mean its value is gone after the vote. In the future it can become valuable for its insight into the history of the town and its politics.  Go to your local historical society and you'll see vaults of books just like this, still being used by historians.  The only issue I see here is possible NPOV problems, which are better solved by editing than deletion (and I didn't see any NPOV issues when I last looked at it).  --Gabe Sechan 18:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Move - to something that can at least be more generalized. I really dislike something so specific and temporal to always exist here as it is, like its own separate book project. I think it would be much more useful to get the ideas of the guide into something as a part of the Voter's Guide. This book in my opinion could be better applied to a general work because I think this is just website storage right now. -Matt 04:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)