Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism

Consumer Behavior in Travel and Tourism
Delete. I hope it is not too unusal to nominate 3 pages at once but they are all part of the same project, two just violate naming policy. This project seems to be more about using Wikibooks as webspace to organize class projects then any actual instructional information. It contains information like which specific students are assigned to which groups, the work of the students in these groups. I am curious if the students understood the licensing of placing their work here. This doesn't seem like an appropriate book for this site. Thenub314 (talk) 10:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep or Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki: I've fixed the naming of the other pages and merged in pages that were part of an older version of the book, so they can all be considered in your submission. However, I don't believe this should be deleted as long as everything in Subject:Class projects continues to exist. Part of me feels like class projects on Wikibooks may be better at Wikiversity (which was itself a part of Wikibooks in the past), but I need to look more closely at their scopes to determine where they fit in best. Whether class projects belong here is something that could be debated. However, the plethora of them on Wikibooks means that there's little momentum toward deleting this. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:56, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I don't think works are kept just because they are part of a class project. The class needs to be working on a book for it to be within Wikibooks' scope. If the work isn't a book then the class is better off doing there work at Wikiversity. I think most of the works listed on Subject:Class projects are reasonably books. Paulpen seems to be the only person whose contributed to the work with the exception of 2 pages, and November 1st 2008 was the last time Paulpen worked on it. November 28th 2008 seems to be the last time anyone who might of belonged to the class contributed to the work. --dark lama  13:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete For what I have examined the book is stale since December 2008, it is just a stub (and not really a book stub but a class project stub), couldn't see any real content.
 * As a response to the above opinion on class project (that I can't comprehend): As I understand it all class projects on Wikibooks have the purpose to produce/start/complete a book project (within Wikibooks policies). This should and for what I know always have been, extremely welcomed on Wikibooks (I have myself extended my congratulations/help for several of those projects).
 * In this particular case the nominator for the VFD is advancing several issues. One seems to have been now addressed but the others seem to be unsolvable unless the project is adopted by someone on this VFD (a simple reshaping of the stub would be a satisfactory solution if someone sees it as important). There really is no use for this class project stub... --Panic (talk) 05:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not saying not to be welcoming towards class projects. Adrignola above seemed to be suggesting that this class project should be kept because Wikibooks allows the other class projects. I disagree with that reasoning. I think the fact a work was done by a class project should not be the sole consideration for keeping or deleting a work. I think most works by class projects are books and are within Wikibooks scope, but teachers can also make mistakes, make assumptions or not understand Wikibooks' scope. Like any works, I think examining, criticizing, scrutinizing and judging works by class projects is an import part of discussing and deciding whether a work is a book and does belongs on Wikibooks or not. --dark lama  19:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was not addressing your comment but Adrignola's statement that "Part of me feels like class projects on Wikibooks may be better at Wikiversity", the distinct (from other type of projects) way a class project may be mistakenly started on Wikibooks is if the teacher(s)/educator(s) somehow infers that the work will not be participated by others than the targeted audience or that a project scope or evolution will be set in stone (probably the point Adrignola was attempting to make). This cases can be problematic due to the established rules (in procedure and practice) but with civility and a will to accommodate productive users by giving contributing and established editors a greater control on specific projects this can be resolved without major issues.
 * I have always of the opinion that there is a special distinction on Wikibookians and Wikipedians, not only on the nature of the edits but in the objective. A Wikipedian contributes to a single large work, even if some stick to specific articles, most edits for what I understand aren't guided by a long term involvement and don't (shouldn't) have close personal relation to those specific contributions, this is very distinct from edits on Wikibooks, were a long term relation, and personal investment is beneficial to the evolution of complete and well structured books. This makes the larger projects very prone to attract disruptive edits, even if well intentioned and allowed by policy (the use of the BeBold policy should take this issues in consideration).
 * Wikibooks suffers for a well known problem that relates to this situation. There is a saying about to many cooks in a kitchen that illustrates the issue, it relates to how easy it is to have meaningless and time wasting conflicts when too many creative people are working together and attempting to get control of a project. Here we have left the kitchen door open, anyone entering will be considered a cook and have the power to not only participate in the elaboration, but to ruin the dish and make the kitchen very unwelcoming to others.
 * As always I'm strongly supportive of granting more control to book communities over their specific projects. The power to block and revert unannounced restructuring/formating or reshaping in books determined as active. This will address any disruptive edits, keep people interested, foster the evolution of better book structures and will address the expectations of teacher(s)/educator(s) for the needed editorial control, without limiting external but coordinated participations.
 * The review flag provides some of this control but it was not created with the Wikibooks project specificity in mind... --Panic (talk) 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My statement may have driven the discussion off track. The comments by Panic above would probably be better placed on a page where they won't be forever attached to a specific book, given their general scope. Additional detail on changes proposed (if any) would be needed to drive the discussion forward.


 * Symbol abstain vote.svg Abstain: As for the book itself, after reconsideration, the mere status of the book as a class project should not preclude it from being subjected to the same criteria other books on Wikibooks have for being textbook material. That was the reasoning behind my vote above, which I withdraw. Lacking that reasoning, I have no feelings toward the book either way. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki this to Wikiversity Geoff Plourde (talk) 17:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The issue with transwiki this book is that the original contributors have dropped the project in 2008 the new changes you see now are corrections made by Adrignola. Moving the content to Wikiversity would only shift the problem to them (no content and no expectations that it will ever have). --Panic (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a class page, which should be on Wikiversity or deleted. Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are other class projects but from my interpretation of above comments a book's status as a class project doesn't really influence its fate for deletion or keeping either way. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:48, 20 August 2009 (UTC)