Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Issue Guide (2)

Issue Guide
I am re-nominating Issue Guide for deletion. The past conversation is here. It's been three years since the last RFD, and no new content has been added. --24.69.155.10 (talk) 05:45, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Transwiki Debatepedia. I think it doesn't fit into 'textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals'. Kayau 05:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Very cool project, Debatepedia. I wasn't aware of it. It is not a Wikimedia project but it is also a non-profit, note that I didn't find any info on the licensing issues, if you have the time to research that it would be great (it may not be compatible). I'm mostly just putting the link up since I had to search it and didn't want to edit your post. I take the chance also to give you the idea to substitute your signature with a user template (sorry for not posting this last bit on your usertalk but it relates to the above post and saves time)... --Panic (talk) 10:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see I was mentioned in the previous discussion, but did not participate in it. I think someone may have misrepresented my position in that discussion. I moved "Morality/Murder" into the Issue Guide book because the book "Morality" did not exist. The Issue Guide book seems within scope to me. The book appears to make a good attempt to maintain a NPOV by presenting the two major sides of each issue. The issues the book attempts to coverer seem like what might be covered by a political or social science textbook to me. A book being inactive is not a reason to delete. I think there is enough substance to this book that anyone could expanded it to address any shortcoming they might see. I think in political and social science just explaining the major opinions could be considered a good start to teaching the issues this book attempts to cover. That said, if the consensus is towards deletion than I suggest transwiki this to Wikiversity. --dark lama  22:20, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep If no new content has been added, then nothing has changed to theoretically result in an RFD outcome that is anything different than before. Examining the book myself I agree that it seems to try to stick to NPOV.  I myself have taken a class that used a textbook titled "Opposing Viewpoints" and used it for research in preparation for in-class debates against fellow students on controversial topics.  This is in scope. – Adrignola talk 22:58, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I've an impression, from somewhere, that studying sets of contrasting opinions was a standard Scholastic exercise during the European Dark Ages. That's a pretty long-standing precedent.


 * The outcome of the previous RFD was that, although the book hadn't gone astray from NPOV yet, it might do so as it evolved in the future, and if so it could then be re-nominated. While some RFD outcomes are conditional on further improvements being made, this one was conditional on possible degradation not occurring.  Since nobody is claiming that such degradation has occurred, the previous decision should stand.


 * Keeping it here would neither prevent it from being exported on Wikiversity, nor make any difference to whether it could be exported to debatepedia. --Pi zero (talk) 00:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you know what license debatepedia uses ? --Panic (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Debatepedia uses the GFDL. Because content at Wikibooks is dual-licensed, you can choose the license of your choice and one of those licenses here is the GFDL.  Therefore the licensing is compatible. – Adrignola talk 13:18, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment If this book is to be kept, perhaps it should be re-named to reflect the fact that it is extremely centered on Western social and moral issues. The name Issue Guide is too broad for the content, in my opinion. Thoughts? Thereen (talk) 02:32, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The current title does suggest an impossibly broad scope for the book. The question becomes, though, just what should the scope be?  Just because all the issue now listed are of a certain kind, that doesn't mean it couldn't easily be expanded to cover more.  The scope and the title should probably be refined together.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:06, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * How about using "Social Ethics" or "Social Philosophy"? --dark lama  03:40, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Works breaking NPOV fall in a very wide gray area. I read our policies on NPOV as preventive measures, to make works support the different views of possible contributors, preventing conflict. In every field there are sections that collide among themselves the severity of the POV issue, if it is offensive to the community or if it is preventing others to contribute or even if the issue is unfixable should be the reasons to bring a project with POV issues to a community discussion over a deletion, as it certainly will not be a good way to kick start the work even if it could cause someone to fix the issue.
 * A WikiBook is a ever evolving project, any NPOV issue if not grave enough to put the book project at risk or cause issues about participation should remain tagged to the situation made clear to that book community as only an interested party would be willing to fix the issue.
 * I defended the keep on the previous discussion and my arguments are still valid, but, since there was no change on the situation I'm willing to support a Transwiki if the decision is inclined that way and if a good location that preserves the content is found. --Panic (talk) 09:37, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

I couldn't support it in its previous form, but with a few extra words it has now become a debaters handbook. --JamesCrook (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)