Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Aeon Shift Kit/Communal Living

Aeon Shift Kit/Communal Living
This book has basically only been edited once by a single editor, it is vague, is not on a bookshelf... Also, this book seems to violate the NPOV clause, and much of the page is a first-person account of communal living. -- 19:34, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not textbook material Juliusross 21:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Gerard Foley 23:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment This is part of a book called Aeon Shift Kit. I will not vote until I check the entire book. --Kernigh 18:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment Oh, i didnt realize that this was part of a bigger book. It certainly didn't follow a normal naming-convention. I'll also hold off on voting till i look at the whole book. -- 20:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment I think Wikibooks needs an attic or cellar where odd things can be stored in case they turn out to be wanted again. Aeon Shift looks more like an outline and notes for a book than an actual book but that charge can be levelled at lots of modules here.  In fact it has more references than many modules.  As for the NPOV, I think that neutrality is often overvalued; clearly visible bias is sometimes to be preferred over the subtle bias that often masquerades as neutrality.  Perhaps Wikibooks needs a mechanism for separating embryonic books from actual books so that the authors or later editors can be enouraged to find a way to fit the book to Wikibooks' strictures and structures.  If the sections on governance and money were to be expanded they could certainly form part of a textbook on political economy.  Just thinking aloud.  --kwhitefoot 21:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment that's true, but we have to keep in mind that many books aren't properly shelved on any bookshelves, and many of the books are so strangely named that it would be impossible for a potential contributer in the future to find the book and work to expand it. If a book has only a single editor, it hasn't been edited by that editor in a long stretch of time, and that book will be difficult for other contributers to find in the future, then i say we delete it and start over. no sense keeping something that can't be fixed. -- 22:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup The entire Aeon Shift Kit has the potential to be a book about a belief system, but it needs to get a name change and be seriously cleaned up.CatastrophicToad 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. After looking at the full text of the book, and seeing that it is shelved properly on the misc. bookshelf, i have changed my position to keep. However, i vote keep with the intention of marking this book for cleanup, because it violates the naming policy, many of the "facts" are not well cited or documented, etc. -- 22:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete This module claims to be a "manifesto for community living", and does not discuss community living in the context of the aeon shift. I copied Aeon Shift Kit-Communal Living to Aeon Shift Kit-Communal Living. See also my comments at Talk:Aeon Shift Kit. However, I agree with Whiteknight for keeping the Aeon Shift Kit book and marking it for cleanup. --Kernigh 02:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and Cleanup If necessary, we can delete this after the cleanup. --Kernigh 04:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Cleanup or Delete - With a total of just 3 edits, one being to add the VfD notice, this has not been progressing that much. A communal living Wikibook would be interesting, but as Whiteknight has suggested, this book also largely a first-person point of view and also violating general NPOV guidelines.  It is also not really organized as a book but reads more like a poorly written encyclopedia entry as well.  It also ignores a huge history of communal living that extends back centuries if not millennia as if it never happened.  That is just plain poor scholarship as well.  --

This book needs to be cleaned up because it doesnt conform to naming convention, and the current text is in a state of disarray. However, not enough votes were garnered to delete this book, so we will keep it for now. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 19:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)