Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/MakerFairePedia

MakerFairePedia
This book is described as the "The online Maker Faire encyclopedia that theoretically anyone can edit." Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia, "nor are pages encyclopedia-formatted articles. Books build knowledge from one page to the next with inter-dependency between pages." This was pushed over from Meta because they didn't want it there, but it's not in scope here either. This is not a textbook in any way, shape, or form, and is frankly using Wikibooks as a web host for a Wikipedia Meetup type event. Pages like MakerFairePedia/Laser Eye Center and MakerFairePedia/KwikSolar.com are purely promotional. – Adrignola discuss 15:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Textbooks describing historical simultaneous events, such as those covering other trade shows linked below, do not necessarily have any inter-dependencies between the descriptions of their exhibits, just as art museum catalogs have no substantial inter-dependencies between their entries. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete non-book collection of promotion. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:48, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is blatantly untrue. The chapter on the National Ignition Facility, for example, has plenty of criticism. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep The book documents a Maker Faire event by third parties without any financial interest in the booths described. There had been no objections to this book from the nominator for more than a year; in fact Adrignola helped with it on several occasions. But when asked about a categorization decision, the administrator responded with this deletion nomination. I can not see how that is acting in good faith at all. If the consensus is to delete I would ask that it be userfied so that I can move the text elsewhere. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 20:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My last sentence: "Additionally the book is out of scope for Wikibooks and I will be nominating it for deletion since this is going to be an issue" (emphasis mine). I have further replied to this effect on my talk page. I perform maintenance on books regardless of my opinion of them and the reason I did not object until now was because I was told to give it some time.  But it's clear to me that this is not going to develop into something appropriate for Wikibooks. – Adrignola discuss 22:05, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This RfD isn't formulated in regards to the value of the content provided, the quality of the work done or the usefulness of the project. It is based on what type of books the Workbooks Project aims to foster and has defined in policy (you can even argue for a change of policy). In any case the work can probably be moved to another location or a change of structure/scope made so we can accommodate it here. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:13, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why a collaborative description of an event would be out of scope. Why is documentation of the exhibits at the 2010 San Mateo Maker Faire not an "instructional guide"? Is there any evidence that no instructor will ever want to share such documentation with students? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:38, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * a textbook, in common usage, is "a book used by students as a standard work for a particular branch of study". A description of the exhibits at a one-off event seems an improbable subject for a branch of study. QU TalkQu 22:50, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why do you think so? Counterexamples are easy to find. And the Maker Faire events are held annually; they are not one-off. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 00:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm very much afraid that I have to agree that this doesn't seem to be a textbook... a book, yes, and possibly a valuable one, but not one that fits in the WB mandate. Have you considered grabbing the Wiki software and putting the whole thing up on a MakerFaire site? Chazz (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of alternative places to put it, but what is the reason you believe it is not in the WB mandate? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 05:16, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read What is Wikibooks? All Wikibookians are mandated to enforce project policy. It is hard to contest that as is, the work falls outside of what is acceptable here on Wikibooks. For instance if broken up and enough content was added to each of the covered projects as product manuals (user-guides or construction) or if the event wasn't so recent it could have been found of historical value. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I saw nothing that would exclude the book or support the idea that documentation of an event should be excluded if the event was recent. Many of the chapters had links to details. On my talk page you have asked me to not leave the project. Why do you think I might want to leave the project? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 19:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Since most people seem to disagree with you on that issue, you should provide some basis to gather support to that viewpoint, simply saying that you don't see it doesn't provide a counter balance to what has already been stated. To the other issue I've replied on your talk page since it doesn't realte to the issue on the table but to how you could perceive a RfD and some considerations about it. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why is the link to the textbook describing a similar trade show held in the 19th century insufficient? Are you unable to find any textbooks describing recent trade shows? Here's one and here's another. In this case, all of the subjective opinions supporting deletion are not only objectively wrong, they are unsupported by reasons or evidence. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The links are not the main issue. No one disagreed that the project may constitute a book. Since the issue is not extremely relevant to this discussion I've replied in more detail in your talk page. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How can you say that the deletion criteria being applied here aren't relevant to this discussion? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Because no one is objecting that as projected the work would be considered a book. What most are objecting to is that it would conform to our policy definition of a textbook. Without some drastic changes to the project I don't believe you will convince people that there is an intrinsic educational value to it (and you have yet to challenge that central point). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 04:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought I did say that survey descriptions of trade shows are educational and useful as textbooks, especially for example when studying the history of commerce. In those books I've seen, the mundane is usually glossed over or omitted entirely when it is evident from other works, so I think trying to highlight the most interesting booths is a reasonable editorial goal. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 18:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with you but the issue here is its relevancy (specifically its cultural or historical relevance), as is there is no specific cultural value added to the content (a list is just a list) and the event is too recent for me at least to recognize it as of historic interest. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Valuable perhaps, but unfortunately not in the WB scope. Chazz (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you intend to answer the question above and provide any reason you say so? Or does it just boil down to a gut feeling? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I had thought the answers given were pretty clear, even if I did not give them. Nothing I have seen here, and nothing that I have seen in the articles in question, leads me to believe that the subject has any value for a textbook. There are no courses being taught on MakerFaire as far as I know. If there were, a simple encyclopedic listing of what was at a MakerFaire would be unlikely to be useful course material; the articles in question would have expanded into an examination of (e.g.) why Makerfaire and other similar meetings existed, and that does not seem to have happened, or to be on the horizon. Chazz (talk) 21:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Those seem to be some very strong opinions. How do you reconcile them with the fact that people often write textbooks about trade shows, without delving into the philosophy of why they exist? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do not know of any textbooks about individual trade shows. References, yes, many of them, in fact there is one such at least for every trade show, though it is generally intended as advertising to get people into the trade show. I would expect that there might be textbooks that investigate specific series or classes of trade shows in the context, not necessarily of philosophy, but in some other ways as to how they relate to the time or the place. However, a single trade show, in isolation from the milieu in which it appears, is seldom of interest to the scholar, and as such seems to me to be outside the scope of WB. At this point, I have stated and supported my opinion, and feel that there is no more I can profitably say; having had two children go through the age of 6, I am no longer interested in dealing with "Why?" repeated ad nauseum. Chazz (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that this is a reference instead of a text? It is supposed to be a historical exposition of the exhibits which represented the trade show. Are you saying that a history isn't a textbook? I'm an adult, by the way, and if you believe that these questions aren't fair, then perhaps it would be better to say so instead of insinuating that those whose work you wish to delete are childish. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 02:57, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that in the face of repeated explanations of why I (and others here) do not believe this qualifies as a text, your response seems to boil down to a repeated "Why isn't this a textbook?" I'm also saying that a history of one event seldom has sufficient scope to be a textbook, though exceptions can be made for events such as the defeat of the Spanish Armada, which had repercussions on the larger scope of history. My position has been made clear at this point and I see little reason to discuss this further. Chazz (talk) 16:18, 26 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of scope. "Wikibooks is for textbooks, annotated texts, instructional guides, and manuals. These materials can be used in a traditional classroom, an accredited or respected institution, a home-school environment, as part of a Wikiversity course or for self-learning. As a general rule only instructional books are suitable for inclusion." Nobody is going to learn anything from this book in the sense in which "instructional" is intended. That is, any book can be deemed to be instructional by asserting that things can be learnt from it (e.g., one could learn all about "Middle Earth" by reading Lord of the Rings, but that doesn't make Lord of the Rings instructional, you can learn all about the proceedings of the UK Parliament by reading Hansard, but it still isn't instructional). Within the policy definition it is clear that the intention is for books here to be written to teach something of educational value and for that to be the purpose of the book rather than it being a byproduct of reading a book designed for a different purpose. The book being nominated is clearly not instructional within the terms of the Wikibooks scope and so should be deleted. QU TalkQu 11:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You use the word "clearly" without giving any reasons or evidence why the book doesn't teach something of educational value. Do you have any such reasons or evidence? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I gave my reasons very clearly above. You keep repeating this request for "evidence" but this discussion, as all RFDs, is about opinion (i.e., in this case my opinion that the book does not meet the inclusion criteria) and subjective. It is impossible to prove, as you seem to want, that it has no educational value, it is however easy to demonstrate it doesn't meet the inclusion criteria of Wikibooks - a very different thing and one I feel I have done. QU TalkQu 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I can find nothing in your comments supporting the idea that the book does not have an educational value. Which specific assertions do you believe support that idea? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm not continuing this discussion any further as I've made my position abundantly clear and have nothing to add. I feel you are ignoring the points being made by me and other contributors asserting we are wrong without bringing forward any evidence that this book meets the inclusion criteria of Wikibooks as opposed to generalised points about educational value. Personally I have read your comments and do not see them adding any weight to the argument that this book should be kept, it simply doesn't fit here QU TalkQu 21:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your use of a fictional example book (Lord of the Rings) is completely inappropriate in a discussion of whether a non-fiction book is instructional, so I am not suprised that you are unwilling to provide any reasons or evidence for your subjective opinion which is contrary to the objective facts I've presented with supporting links. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:06, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * First impression looking at the title page was great this looks like something that might be better suited for Wikiversity. After all descriptions of what each exhibit is about, attempts to teach, and the like can be done in an education way. But after first looking at the two pages mentioned by Adrignola and than the rest of the pages, I see there is nothing salvageable that would be useful in that way for use at Wikiversity. All the pages are in fact spam and seem to be by the same anonymous IP user.. --dark lama  13:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All of the pages in it are spam under what definition of spam? I was the anonymous IP user responsible for most of the book and I have no commercial or financial interest in any of the exhibits. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 18:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Spam is generally defined as unsolicited or unwanted information. I agree with you that in this case classifying the existing content as spam may seem a bit strong, but has been generally used in this project as to include general advertising and even crazy writing. So read spam as labeling unwanted content to the Wikibook project (inline with what most people here are stating). As for the IP keep in mind that all edits are anonymous and the mentioning of that above shouldn't be seen as an attack on your character, at best it could be read (sadly) as implying that the information is less relevant since the one providing it wasn't even a registered Wikibookian (now clarified that it was you).  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Spam is specifically defined as unsolicited commercial offers. The deleted pages were more no or less commercial than any exhibits at any trade show, recent or not, and most certainly contained no offers. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree in regards to your assertiveness about commercial offers (and would happily continue to discuss it in my talk page), but in any case my post clearly provided you the normal interpretation we historically give to it on Wikibooks. I would point to you that this are minor issues in comparison to our policy constraints in regards to determining valid content. If you do have a valid argumentation for keeping the work under the existing policy you should present it.
 * I take the chance to note that the user wasn't welcomed to the project and I assume hadn't all the background information. I also point out that administrative action on content under RfD, especially where its editor is participating can be very harmful and distressing. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is the proper place for the discussion. Do you have any reason to say that any of the pages involved a commercial offer or evidence that they did? I have provided three examples showing that there are textbooks describing trade shows. Simple web searches show that there are many such textbooks for both recent and historical events. Nobody has presented any evidence that such textbooks do not exist or are unsuitable for instruction. Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Since I haven't used the label of spam (nor the nominator for that mater) I remove myself that debate. As for the definition of textbook my view is that the policy is clear. But as I've asked, make a good argumentation for the instructional value of the nominated work that would advance your cause. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that Wikibooks is for well-documented facts. This project is full of personal opinions.-- Arthur  Vogel  22:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Such as? Are you saying critiques would be out of scope here, too? Jsalsman (discuss • contribs) 22:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There are many Wikibooks that go beyond documented facts, especially in the field of philosophy, religion, art and even text annotation. Some books express personal opinions and preferences and are ok to do so if done in a transparent and non-authoritative way. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I have tried to read this book and get an idea about whether it should be deleted or not but I can't. I have no idea whatsoever what "MakerFaire" even is.  Nothing is explained although everyone here seems to have some idea.  That said, the book does seem crap but I can't really be sure.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Finally saw the link to the Wikipedia article. The spelling of "fair" as "faire" was what confused me the most.  Still not a great book though.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 20:04, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

-- My understanding is that our What is Wikibooks? policy is intended to describe the dividing line between things we want to keep here and things that are outside our scope. The current What is Wikibooks? policy specifically says "Wikibooks includes both minor and major book-like projects.", with a link to Incubator. Our current draft Incubator specifically uses MakerFairePedia as the one and only example of such a "minor book-like project".

Many of the above-listed "reasons to delete it" -- in particular, "non-book", "promotion", "a one-off event", "the event is too recent", "the purpose of the book", "All the pages ... seem to be by the same anonymous IP user" -- are all irrelevant to whether something should stay at Wikibooks, since none of them are mentioned in the What is Wikibooks? policy. Is there some other policy that makes them relevant, or are they all echoes of wikipedia:wp:Idontlikeit? --DavidCary (discuss • contribs) 21:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I would agree to support a keep if anyone made a point about how this project is educational, there are other works on Wikibooks that also are specifically outside of what is on the What is Wikibooks? policy but all have an educational value. In this regard the "the event is too recent" is the only motive that I'm inclined to agree that the work doesn't fir here, since there is not much content to evaluate if further. Consider for a moment of what similar projects could be created using the same conditions if we were to consider the description of recent events. I could start a book on RockInRio or some other event that even if it would considered to be book material, it wouldn't be what we should aim for. Consider also the potential for conflict that covering recent events has, for instance a similar project covering the The National Tea Party Convention 2010. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)


 * "Promotion" is covered by WB:SOAP. "Too recent" and "one-off event" is covered by WB:NEWS. WB:WIW also says "Most types of books, both fiction and non-fiction, are not allowed on Wikibooks, unless they are instructional". The quote of "|Wikibooks includes both minor and major book-like projects" was added by the drafter of the Incubator proposal. The reasons given in the discussion of this book here may demonstrate neither that addition nor the Incubator draft has a consensus to be left as is.
 * As for "All the pages seem to be by the same anonymous IP user", I agree not really relevant to the issue of deletion. I saw the anonymous IP address as unfortunate and not as a reason to delete, because based on what info was available at the time it seemed unlikely there would be any way to contact the author for their input and possibly encourage improvements of the work enough to sway people to change their minds in this discussion. --dark lama  23:28, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus to delete. I have tagged the book with and will move to delete if there is no significant further discussion within a few days. QU TalkQu 19:03, 6 September 2011 (UTC)