Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Medicine4kids

Medicine4kids
This book was originally added six months ago. It has not had any significant edits since the day it was created. It was apparently intended to be a Wikijunior book as the author left links to it on Wikijunior Pages. It does not contain any content of reasonable value and did not go through the Wikijunior New Title process. I believe it should be deleted. --xixtas 20:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - As it stands it's not a book. And it's a bit of a dodgy topic for kids really.  I have a book on Wikijunior which didn't go through the Wikijunior New Title process so I'm voting for deletion on content and usefulness merits only. Xania 20:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I do not think skipping the new book process in itself is a good argument for deletion, but if this title had been listed there and had the associated outline and user comments, that would have been something in its favor, IMO. --xixtas 22:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - with both Xixtas & Xania on this one. Almost speedy in my view -- Herby  talk thyme 21:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete - On the grounds that some books that are mere stubs perhaps ought to be deleted eventually. This is as close to being a pure stub of a Wikibook as you can get.  Wikibooks is literally filled with raw stubs like this, and some cleanup has occurred to remove stuff like this in the past.  --Rob Horning 05:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to Wikijunior - Policy dictates that we keep this. --Swift 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No meaningful content. --Swift 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I understand the value of deleting here since this stub has no structure and has been stagnant for six months. However, I think we need to focus on why the project would benefit by not having this book. The way I see it, stubby books are more likely to draw contributors than empty spaces on the bookshelves. There are a lot of stubs going up for deletion these days and good riddance to some of them. Policy, however, does not allow stubs with potential. If there is a strong feeling that these should be deleted, it is time to propose a change to the policy. --Swift 13:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment and fair comment Swift, however I don't think this is the best example you could use -- Herby talk thyme 15:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand you. I'm not making an example. I'm pointing to policy. --Swift 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I guess that depends what the definition of "definition" is. In my opinion, a definition for a Wikijunior book should include a name, a target age, a scope, a selection of possible article titles, and a list of typical article questions. Wikijunior should not become a free for all with any non-fiction book aimed at children allowed. As it stands our top page has to serve as both a landing page for contributors and our intended audience, kids. It would be damaging to the project if many stubs like this were created, abandoned, and allowed to sit abandoned. There is nothing in this 'book' that could be kept to be made into a Wikijunior book. Not even the title. Perhaps the idea of having a health book for children could be kept, but such a book would be a major undertaking and would be far too broad to fit within the current "42 page" definition of what a Wikijunior book should be. --xixtas 19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "I guess that depends what the definition of "definition" is." No. It depends on what the definition of "policy" is. According to WB:PAG:
 * A policy is a set of rules that must be followed.
 * For the definition of "must" see the above link.
 * "In my opinion, a definition for a Wikijunior book should include". Then propose a policy for Wikijunior, tag it as proposed and get it accepted by the Wikibooks community. Until then you can't really break policy according to your personal opinion. I understand your arguments and have no real attachment to the book, but until there is a demonstrated community consensus on this (I don't see VfD sufficient) policy must dictate.
 * "Perhaps the idea of having a health book for children could be kept". OK, then how about moving it to Wikijunior Medicine for Kids, not linked from anywhere in particular, but categorized somehow?
 * Alternatively, categorize, rather than vfd these WJ books and create a separate WJ policy, get it accepted and then delete the tagged guys en-masse. --Swift 06:30, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I'll not be spending any of my time working on this book. I do not currently have the energy or enthusiasm to write and shepherd any kind of Wikijunior policy. I will stay out of VfD's in the future. --xixtas 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. I am going to disagree with you Swift, I don't think that the policy you are pointing to indicates we should keep this one at all. The deletion policy says "However, delete stubs that don't even have a decent definition.", which seems to describe this page exactly. A textbook "definition" is more then simply a sentence with a stated goal. Also, on the deletion policy, this "book" doesn't even qualify as "meaningful content". It's a page with a sentence and an external link (the link points to de.wikibooks, but for the purposes of this discussion I am going to consider that "External"). That the word "definition" is not properly defined on the policy page does not mean that it can be ignored as a criteria for keeping a book. In the face of such vagaries, we must rely on our own personal interpretations of the policy, like User:Xixtas did above. Many policies are purposefully written with such vagaries, to allow wikibookians to analyze policy matters on a case-by-case basis. We are not robots, and there is (and must be) a certain amount of leighway for us when making decisions about this kind of stuff. I posit that this book does not have an acceptable definition, and it is not meaningful content, and that it should, therefore, be deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the definition is fine, but I'll agree with the no meaningful content point. I've changed my vote. --Swift 19:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)