Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/26 over 44 (2)

26 over 44
Seems to contain original research, npov issues and wikibooks is not a soapbox. --Thereen (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity transwiki. Yeah, it's a lot of POV-pushing and OR, but fortunately (or should I say unfortunately?) WV accepts those. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 04:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment Despite the original author's assurance that they were interested in fixing the POV problems during the first deletion nomination, the author stopped contributing soon after. A point that was made during that nomination is there is nothing original about the views expressed in the book, but sources need to be cited. Both issues seem fixable to me given someone willing to do so. I see no benefit in moving this to Wikiversity, unless someone at Wikiversity is interested in adopting this work, because this work appears to have been abandoned for about 4 years now. --dark lama  11:15, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The author's last comments are here in Whiteknight's talk archive, if anyone is interested. He does express an intention to address the issues raised, but the fact that this was his final contribution suggests that he lost his motivation or found the total change of style too difficult to achieve. So what we are left with is a largely unsourced personal essay. I think the question is whether any of it could be adapted for the different kind of book that was imagined in the discussions, or whether the prospect of any further development is so negligible that the book may as well be deleted. Recent Runes (talk) 22:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Original research, undeveloped in years, nobody else is interested in working on it (demonstrated by the years of non-development), not a textbook. QU TalkQu 23:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I agree with QU on this one. Thenub314  ( talk ) 16:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)