Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Guide to the Spiritual

Guide to the Spiritual
In April this year, Hagindaz merged three books by, aka , under this title.

All seem to originate from Wikipedia, judging from the intensive interlinking. The first two sections deal with spiritual transcendence "into a w:Dimensional Beyondnes". Searching the internet for either of the two reveals little along the lines of the article, other than what the author of the article himself has written. The term "Dimensional Beyondness" was first used by Kirkegaard, but every other mention of it on the Internet is by Mr. Kawohl and in this book Kirkegaard is only mentioned in passing while Kawohl's own book and ideas take centre stage. This former half seems to be severely plagued by original research which won't be fixed by this author.

The latter is hardly any better. Despite a token "... perceives:" in the opening of this book's last section, it is completely an expression of a very narrow point of view. The description may be of interest, but when educational, it is too encylopaedic in tone &mdash; when not, it is soapboxing.

I have stated before that I have nothing against the subject matter, were it handled appropriately. I see this in breach of Wikibooks policies and after extensive reading here on Wikibooks, at Wikipedia and the Internet, I have become convinced that this will not be rewritten properly and that the current content will not be salvaged. --Swift 05:56, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK - first off I would possibly object if someone else did this but ...
 * These two are by the same person on the same subject Theology/Urantian theology & Urantia United Foreword - I've mentioned it on their user page and not had a response. I suggest when these are all concluded something on both user talk pages about the fact that further similar offerings may well be quickly deleted would not be inappropriate - thanks and with apologies for adding to a VfD in progress -- Herby  talk thyme 13:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete - he's just pushing his barrow again. Webaware 07:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Swift. Kellen T 07:50, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - enough I feel -- Herby talk thyme 08:08, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - As someone worded it nicely, "self-promotion spam". --Zddune 18:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Again, I don't see this as a breach of policy. As long as he realizes that he needs to solidify some of his arguments up a little, give a couple of citations and so forth, I don't see an issue. The issue I see of course, is the fact that the last edit was June of last year... I understand that stubs aren't exactly in policy yet, so I'm pretty much neutral right now. This is not spam, as he is obviously not making any money off of it, it isn't an advertisement and it is a "textbook" in the idea that it holds itself up. Well... it can eventually, it just needs to be "de-wikified".--Dragontamer 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment however as they tend to point to what I presume is his website it may well be that they are designed to attract traffic -- Herby talk thyme 20:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Its definitely designed to attract traffic. Do a Google search with his name and this guy has copy pasted these materials all over the internet, whereever he can stuff them in. --Zddune 23:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm in agreement with Dragontamer. I think we may be a bit too hasty at times.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 23:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing hasty about this nomination. I spent over an hour reading up on KK's edits on WP, here and searching the Internet. My decision to nominate this was not done beforehand, but in light of the damming evidence I am positive that this will never amount to a wikibook in step with policies. --Swift 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * "As long as he realizes that he needs to solidify some of his arguments up a little". I agree completely (which is why I stated that "I have nothing against the subject matter, were it handled appropriately.") My objections to this book are that there is no indication that it will happen.
 * "This is not spam". I'm not nominating this book for deletion on account of it being as stub, spam or an advertisement. Please note that the subject is the author's own published views. Wikibooks is not a soapbox.

From the page:
 * "Spiritual transcendence" of a person's spirit into a w:Dimensional Beyondness was supposedlt achieved by most well known religious leaders.Abraham, Moses, Noah, w:Jesus, w:Muhammad, w:Krishna, w:Bahá'u'lláh, w:Ahmad, w:Nanak, w:Kawohl


 * The book currently suffers from breaches of OR and NPOV policies. The user has a history of pushing his views on Wikipedia and had a bunch of stuff deleted (I admit, I'm assuming that they are one and the same. Conformation would be nice). I'm sceptical that Wikibooks will get any more cooperation. --Swift 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

--- I edited and removed links. Please reconsider. Kkawohl 00:36, 4 January 2007 (UTC)kkawohl


 * Actually, you removed ordinary links from your other book here on VfD.
 * Kkawohl, the problem is not the links. Well, they are a problem, but not one that warrants a VfD. The links are simply a sign that this is probably a copy of something from Wikipedia. Is this the case? If so, where is that copy now? In the case that it was deleted, could you provide us with links to the AfD discussion?
 * The problem is that you seem to be writing a book on ideas put forth by yourself. You have a website, please use it for you personal promotion. Just as my personal theories on politics don't belong here, your ideas on spirituality don't either.
 * Please don't take this personally (as User:Iamunknown said well). I simply see this as a breach of Wikibooks' policies. --Swift 05:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment - I take the chance to point the user to the Deletion policy and to inform that the same policy will probably be open for reevaluation, he is welcomed to take the chance and provide any insight that may have escaped Wikibookians previously, more, I remember the user that by deleting the book at Wikibooks, Wikibookians are expressing the general opinion to not host its content, many other services do mirror Wikibooks and the user is free under the GFDL to move it anywhere else and if he is the sole author (or using only his contributions) even under a different license, we are not evaluating the book content in itself but against the specified general wishes of the community. --Panic 03:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Uh, delete........no, really.....delete.......no, I mean it: DELETE! With about 500 hours' worth of work, this might one day become a NPOV textbook. Buddpaul 02:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Propose Close I'm proposing that this vote be closed as delete even though it's only been open for a few days. A quick decision is quite unusual on Wikibooks! Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 12:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * With care - personally I am unsure. The policy is seven days.  It was not appreciated by another admin when I did it! -- Herby  talk thyme 12:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. This discussion remains open.  I didn't know about any 7 day discussion rule and thought it would work like on Wikipedia where a decision is reached once a sizeable number have voted.  Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 13:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete After thinking on it, I feel that its stubbiness and inactivity is enough reason to delete it. Another big issue is the possibility of original research... I admit that I don't know the next thing about theology, but it does sound awfully OR to me. I don't think of this as spam, nor as an advertisement however. --Dragontamer 22:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)