Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/A Scientific Perspective of Philosophy

A Scientific Perspective of Philosophy
I propose to delete the book. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:29, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Length: 770 words
 * I see no valuable content.
 * Initial contribution: September 2007 and October 2007
 * The title of the book "A Scientific Perspective of Philosophy" looks suspect; Google finds under this title as a search term only this wikibook.
 * The book states that it is inspired by the Russian wikibook ru:Философия науки, whose title reads in English "Philosophy of Science".
 * Wikibooks already has Introduction_to_Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Science


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comments As the original contributor made clear at the Introduction_to_Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Science he feels there are two different meanings of the phrase "Philosophy of Science" and goes on to point out that the book in question and the module are discussing different issues.  Reading both they seem to be quite different their approach.  While the last edit by the main contributor was in October 2007, there were two non-trivial edits was on September 13, 2009.  One by an IP user, and an other by logged in user (of course nothing says these were not the same person. It was the logged in user's only edit)  While the title is a bit unorthodox, judging by the edits at Introduction_to_Philosophy/Philosophy_of_Science it seems the main contributor was aware that this would usually be titled "Philosophy of Science" and was trying to choose something to distinguish it. Googling "Noob to Pro" also mostly pulls up links related to the Blender book, so I don't think in this case the Google search indicates that anything is suspect.  These are the points I think are imporant in considering this book.

--Thenub314 (talk) 09:59, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The book is a stub. Even more then that the book never made it to the point of discussing its main topic.  Instead it stands as more or less an introduction.
 * It also appears to be abandoned for approximately two years.
 * There were two recent edits, but whether or not the were constructive is open to opinion. I tend to view them as deteriorating the introduction to the book.
 * The book as been tagged with for two years and  for one month.

Delete. I say it's original research, and a stub. And should go. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

sounds like original research to me. not really appropriate.--ЗAНИA talk 00:33, 5 November 2009 (UTC)