Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Annotations of The Complete Peanuts

Annotations of The Complete Peanuts
Seems to have been an abandon Wikipedia import: --dark lama  17:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Doesn't appear to be annotated in any way
 * Consist of links and list of pages to refer to.
 * Not sure it has any educational value.


 * Delete: For reasons mentioned above, though this has only been abandoned for two months it appears that nothing has been done to it at all in that time (except for cleanups by a few regulars), not like someone has been working on it but slowly. I think it might be useful as a stretch in some class on cultural outlets but its just that, a stretch, and such a class would probably only use, say, one annotated Peanuts and then move on to other things. Mattb112885 17:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Peanuts has considerable cultural significance... this annotation is explaining cultural references that have since become anachronistic. I'll switch the links to w: for now. -- SB_Johnny | talk 20:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I agree with SBJohnny. Peanuts has potential and there is substantial work there already.  Plus Peanuts is great! Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 21:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Would this not be more appropriate for Wikisource than? I believe Wikisource is meant for this sort of text. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 16:13, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure about this point. Annotated texts do seem to be on both Wikibooks and Wikisource, and this is admittedly one of the substantial grey areas between both projects.  Since there are so many other things that clearly differentiate both projects, this one area really isn't much of a problem so far as turf wars don't seem to be a problem either and both Wikisource and Wikibooks are about the same size in terms of number of participants.  If I had to make a distinction for where annotated texts should go, I would suggest that Wikisource keep the annotated texts of sources that are available under the GFDL (or PD-old) and Wikibooks keep those that are for content under copyright.  Under this philosophy, perhaps the best course is Keep.  --Rob Horning 20:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The distinction I was thinking of is that Wikisource has annotated texts that are not necessarily educational materials used in a classroom, I think, while annotated texts on Wikibooks should be educational materials used in a classroom. I'm not sure where copyright or licenses fits into the distinction between both projects, but I think both use the GFDL. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 13:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not trying to say that the content here on Wikibooks ought to be something other than the GFDL. Of course it should be.  The point I was trying to make is that if the "source content" is available under the GFDL or is public domain, that text itself should also be on Wikisource anyway, and the annotations should be directly tied to the content.  There really doesn't seem to be a point to separate the annotations on one project and the source text itself on another one.  If the source content is not available under the GFDL, the nature of the annotations will therefore be somewhat different and there isn't a reason for Wikisource to host that sort of content.  Yet Wikibooks certainly would be a place to host notes related to another book that may even be commercially published elsewhere.  The annotations, of course, would always be available under the GFDL.  --Rob Horning 19:59, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the distinction should be Wikibook is for an original book, created wholely at wikibooks, while Wikisource should be for textbooks that are already present at other medium, wikified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by anonymous (talk • contribs).
 * There are very few (I don't think any) textbooks at Wikisource, so it isn't completley a true statement here. It is true that Wikibooks are completely new books.  But official policy even from the very beginning of this project has explicitly permitted annotated texts.  There are some books that Wikisource won't take, as in particular they won't take texts that are added by the original author (except under very rare circumstances).  This is to keep Wikisource from becoming a vanity publisher, just as we try to keep that happening here as well.  Only here on Wikibooks that is kept under control because we demand that all content which is added should also be editable and changeable.  That usually scares away those who would try to add their pet book project they have been working on for the past 10 years, which would normally go to a vanity press.  --Rob Horning 03:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm going to say keep on this one, although it is hardly the "model" annotated text. What I worry about most is that this is less like an annotation, and more like a set of footnotes and errata. The bulleted list of factoids would do better to be reformatted as prose with critical discussion and analysis, in addition to the random tidbits of information. Since I am neither qualified, able, nor interested to make these changes, i will simply drop the issue. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I share your same concerns and agree that its more like a set of footnotes and errata than annotation. That is part of why nominated it for deletion. I agree that it needs to be reformatted with critical discussion and analysis; I believe that is what is needed in order to be kept. It looks like it was imported from Wikipedia to me and I'm assuming someone requested it and intended to either do that or make it part of some pre-existing book, but hasn't done so. In fact as Mattb112885 said, it hasn't been worked on for two months and the only work that seems to have been done is some minor cleanup by regulars. My Wikisource suggestion is intended to be a possible compromise for a means of keeping the material, while moving it to perhaps a more appropriate wiki. --dark [[Image:Yin yang.svg|12px]] lama 13:18, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and delete. I'm the creator of these annotations.  Given the general feeling that these don't belong anywhere in the Wiki universe, you have my permission to delete these.  I will be starting up a web page of my own that will contain them as well as future volumes.  I'll then put that under External Links.KXL 20:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is precisely why these VfD discussions can be so awful. Here is a legitimate user who added content in good faith, trying to abide by the rules of the various projects, only to discover a byzantine series of policy pronouncements that they don't even want to bother dealing with.  I don't necessarily blame him for wanting to leave, given this kind of treatment.  --Rob Horning 23:04, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Robert's comments above. -- SB_Johnny | talk 23:18, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. When a user adds content in good faith, it belongs *somewhere* in the wiki universe. If it doesn't belong here, then please suggest some other wiki where it does belong. In this case, I feel the best place for this Peanuts annotation is Wikibooks, although I might be persuaded that Wikisource or http://bookshelved.org/ would also be an adequate location. --DavidCary 01:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)