Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/How To Build A Pykrete Bong (4)

How To Build A Pykrete Bong
Delete. Before I start I would like to point out this will be the books fourth nomination for deletion. The first was very clearly a keep, and the second failed to reach any consensus (and got a bit side tracked into whether or now How-To books are acceptable). The third again failed to reach consensus. A major aspect of the previous subjects was whether or not material about illegal activities should be allowed. This is interesting but not what I see as the real reason why this book violates WB:WIW.

First let me point out the results of a quick google test. A search for Pykrete yeilds approx 76,000 results. A search for bong yeilds about 18,500,000. A search for "pykrete bong" yeilds 353, and the majority of them seem to be links, duplications or blog summaries of our content.

To me this violates our OR policy. I tend to think that a Pykrete bong is a very original idea, and is as far as I can tell the original idea of the particular author who posted it.

I might point out the question as to whether or not this constitutes original research was not a part of the previous RfD's. Perhaps others will feel this should be transwikied to wikiversity, but I really think this would be pushing our unwanted material on them, unless there is someone there who wants it for some reason. Thenub314 (talk) 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not every book has to necessarily violate WB:WIW for it to be deleted. I'd suggest that this book is a leftover from the how-to purge and will not develop further.  Beyond that, it is not significantly educational in nature, such that one would expect a class taught on the subject and needing a textbook.  Too often books are kept that diminish the reputation of Wikibooks.  Exercise some editorial control! – Adrignola talk 13:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When and why was the how-to purge? --Pi zero (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You've been around longer than myself. However, I take my history from Talk:How To Build A Pykrete Bong where Swift has left a note. Additionally, Requests for deletion/Archive 9 specifically mentions it. – Adrignola talk 16:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah. The second discussion does make it pretty clear.  The how-to-ness of it isn't inherently relevant here, I think.  (Note that Jimbo's influence is surely at an historical low these days; and we're talking about Jimbo's desire, once upon a time, to delete an entire class of material, which has especially low credibility these days.)  So we're better off sticking to the more directly WIW-based issues.  --Pi zero (talk) 17:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * For the same reason we should grant minorities a say in other decisions, we should make an effort only to act on violations of WIW or other accepted instances of the deletion policy, something that at least is expected to have gathered a larger level of consensus. As all rationals for the deletion are ephemeral otherwise. We will get things like "I decide so because I don't like it" (and variations of it), this shouldn't be given great consideration on RfD. We should attempt to act for the community not as the community. --Panic (talk) 15:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - yep, this book is too terrible to be developed. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 13:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment Reading back over the previous deletion proposals, I see that one person mentioned that the book contained verifiable information and another person did in fact suggest this was original research. Also perhaps worth noting is that this material was originally unwanted material pushed on us from Wikipedia. --dark lama  13:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This RfD isn't validating work done, it is only readdressing past discussions and expressing new moods, the WIW hasn't been radically changed in the meanwhile and the book has remained static.
 * The book was created and validated, unless something radically changes in the book or policy past decisions should be respected. --Panic (talk) 16:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki Symbol delete vote.svg Delete My thinking:
 * Although frequent nominations of a book smack of multiple jeopardy, it's not unreasonable to revisit past decisions when a lot of time has passed, and policy and the interpretation of policy have evolved. The only past decision that one could consider whether to respect is the one in 2005; the later discussions were inconclusive.
 * I couldn't care less about the controversial nature of the activity described.
 * The information about pykrete construction is interesting in itself, and one could indeed imagine a book about how to make things out of pykrete &mdash; but the material here is primarily of interest for the cleverness of using pykrete for a bong (where cooling the smoke is the point of the device), which is IMO definitely original research. Even if there were a book about making things out of pykrete, if this particular choice of what to make were to appear in that book it would probably still be inadmissible OR.  So I agree with the nominator: it's OR.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you agree to give it a chance elsewhere? A transwiki was already proposed here, and on the other discussions at some degree I would agree that it could be classified as OR even if pykrete construction is not new the proposed use is innovative. Even if it fails to be kept on the destination closing the RfD as transwiki will give it greater chance to be saved in the future. --Panic (talk) 19:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were reasonably comfortable that it would likely be acceptable at its new home, I'd have no problem endorsing the idea. Where would you want to send it?  --Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The only place we can attempt to put it is on Wikiversity but closing the RfD as a transwiki even if not accepted, tags the work as having some value, based on your comments it should be reasonable to expect that "when a lot of time has passed, and policy and the interpretation of policy have evolved" we can see some of the works restored (it should go both ways) I already have the idea that Wikiversity would gain by examining all our RfD logs for useful material (especially those tagged as transwiki). --Panic (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply offering it for their consideration seems reasonable; and I do take the point that a transwiki tag on deleted material would identify it as not simply garbage. --Pi zero (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we just going to keep sending this book to VFD/RFD until certain people get the decision that they wish for? Most countries in the world don't allow multiple trials for people found 'innocent'.  Keep the book. --ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It would likely maximize the visibility of your vote in the discussion if you were to de-indent it (to a single ":") and put a keep, or the like, in front of it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of finding some consensus I could compromise to a, but it is really against my better judgment. Thenub314 (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I've listed it for import at Wikiversity, but if they don't want it, I'm going to delete it as a result of the above and also taking into account the words of Jimbo Wales. – Adrignola talk 23:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅ Imported. Diego Grez (talk) 23:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)