Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Emotions

Emotions
Delete: --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Length: 470 words
 * Low-quality content – judge for yourself
 * Last substantive contribution: 13 December 2006
 * First substantive contribution: 18 November 2006

, what is there is not NPOV, not very substantive, and abandoned. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:32, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment To me is a stub, with valid content. What where the NPOV issues you identified ? --Panic (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep It is a valid stub, since the NPOV issue was not clarified I think we should keep it. --Panic (talk) 01:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, so let us be explicit about some of the sentences that are wrong:
 * "Emotions are part of mental perception."
 * "We have to be very thankful that most of us do posses emotions otherwise life would have been meaningless."
 * "Life without emotions is not only unimaginable; it is unbearable."
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment These all seem to be incidental violations of NPOV, not difficult to eliminate. If there were an intrinsic POV-ness to the book, that would be another matter.  There is a certain high-handedness to the way it presents its (I gather) neurobiological view of emotions, but that too could be readily fixed by actually saying that the book is presenting a neurobiological theory of emotions.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If the POV samples that I have listed from this 470 words-long text do not suffice, let us put the question the other way around, then: what NPOV quotations are you able to collect from the book such that they say anything substatial? How many words remain after the POVs are removed? I had a look at the book as a whole, and IMHO it is as a whole worth dumping. Its stub content is worthless, and it has no outline to provide for expansion.
 * An alternative to deleting the book is moving it to the userspace of its author: User:Jmoinian. The author already has several books in his userspace, of similar quality:
 * User:Jmoinian/Economy, User:Jmoinian/Oil, User:Jmoinian/Hijab, User:Jmoinian/Dogs. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see anything wrong on those sentences (I didn't check the context only what you wrote here).
 * Emotions are a mental state and the ability to perceive emotions on others is defined as empathy, that makes the affirmation that emotions are part of mental perception correct as they are an important  part of the input we take from the real world to create our mental representation of reality (example of this is how we respond to different colors). All the other phrases are equally defensible and they don't seem to establish a specific point of view...  --Panic (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The alternative to move it to the userspace must be created by a request from the user. It is not up to us. --Panic (talk) 20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's rubbish, but I suggest we move it to be a module in Relationships which discusses similar topics Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep as per policy --Swift (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Where does the policy say "All books entitled "Emotions" must be kept"? It doesn't - you'll need to say why the deletion policy (or the particular section) brings you to the conclusion that it shouldn't be deleted. Doubly so since others have applied the same policy and come to different conclusions. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, indeed it doesn't. The link in my comment above points to the "What to keep, what to delete" section in the deletion policy. I believe that each of the three points in that section put this book in the "keep" side.
 * The delete arguments only refer to the NPOV and quality of the article (size or active development are irrelevant) which are mentioned in other parts of the policy. Since consensus seems to lean to keep, I saw no need to mention that no-one has argued that the NPOV is inherent and that quality is subjective (and the quality of this particular book doesn't seem bother most people). --Swift (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep As per the above comments and lack of refutation. I'll contact Mattb112885 to see if this VFD can be  unblocked or at least advance in some direction.  --Panic (talk) 22:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)