Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter

Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter
Transwikied from wikipedia but not an instructional resource. Kappa 21:11, 30 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But wouldn't Cliffs Notes be considered instructional resources? These seem no different than Cliffs Notes, and the instructional uses of those seems reasonable. I think it would be going too far to have a wikibook television episode guide, but this doesn't seem to cross the line. MShonle 21:54, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * May not need a vote. See Talk:Harry Potter plots/Half-Blood Prince. - Aya T C 02:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is no longer considered copyvio, so go ahead and vote. As an bureaucrat, I don't feel comfortable voting myself, but I will point out there are similar works in our English Literature bookshelf already. - Aya T C 21:39, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This book has incredible value towards providing contextual information on the Harry Potter books. Character and setting context are helpfully explained to aide in understanding the books' environments and character information. The book is very useful when needing to look up a bit of character information or where an event may have occurred. It is an excellent guide. Wikipedia also heavily links to the book to provide extended descriptions of plot sysnopses on Harry Potter book pages. Also, this deletion may have been nominated due to a personal vendetta on HP plot pages and the user is making conflicting VfD votes on Wikipedia. -Matt 14:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep &mdash; this is indeed practically a CliffsNotes version of the book, created here in response to objections raised over on Wikipedia on having pages such as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince - Full Plot Summary. Many users raised concerns that this is a copyvio &mdash; if that's the case, then the Harry Potter Lexicon should have been shut down about two years ago. Relax, people. I don't think Rowling's going to sue the pants off us for a summary of the books. Oh, and second Matt's vote up there. Hermione1980 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-registered users at Wikibooks are not permitted to vote. KelvSYC 17:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
 * There, I've registered. Can my vote count now, or do you have a policy against new users voting, like they do over on Wikipedia? Hermione1980 18:39, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As it says at the top of the page, read Deletion policy for the rules. We haven't had to institute a Wikipedia-esque policy to vote as of yet, since Wikibooks is generally less active, and thus far less controversy occurs. We also like to think we're slightly more flexible than Wikipedia. Hopefully as we tighten up policy, we shouldn't need nearly as many VFDs, since the cases will be more clear-cut. - Aya T C 19:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete As a pure fork of Wikipedia content, it should go, but if there is some progress to incorporate new content above and beyond what could be folded back into the Wikipedia pages, I would support it staying on Wikibooks. I would strongly suport a reader's guide to Harry Potter (that could even be a real, honest to goodness textbook that would be in demand by educators...something we desperately need on Wikibooks), but I don't see this plot spoiler doing the trick. --Rob Horning 08:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It's not a fork. It's a transwiki. Uncle G 11:28:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
 * I second Uncle G: It's not a fork, it's a transwiki. Wikibooks is the more likely place for this page to live. MShonle 14:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Study guides and annotated texts are well within the remit of Wikibooks. As long as that is the direction in which these are headed, which is simply a matter of us encouraging that by adding the infrastructre to support the beginnings of annotation, Keep. Uncle G 11:28:24, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
 * There are plans to improve the current content as well as adding content to make the book more useful. I'm only waiting for this page to get off VFD so that I can start editing. -Matt 13:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * You can edit now. Nothing's stopping you, and we're not very likely to reach any consensus. Just go ahead. :) GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I realize nothing restricts my editing but I thought the page should be left untouched until VFD finishes. I thought that was policy to avoid biased voting due to edits. Anyway, I will try to get to it. I'm somewhat new to the Wiki administrative system and I'd like the book renamed to simply "Harry Potter" if possible. Could someone point me to how I request that? Since I'd like the book to be more comprehensive over time, I thought adding things like extended character descriptions in addition to the plot synopses would be helpful. Any problems with that? I like the "Harry Potter textbook" idea and would definitely try to make it so. -Matt 14:58, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is a discussion, not an election. Things don't freeze on polling day.  You not only may edit the module to address the concerns raised during the discussion, you are encouraged to. Uncle G 19:46:15, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be wise to call the book "Harry Potter": that would be way too confusing. We need to signal what it is. Like "A Textbook on Harry Potter" or "Harry Potter Plot Summaries". It should be very obvious to someone what it is, and just the name "Harry Potter" wouldn't be telling enough. MShonle 15:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Would something like "Harry Potter Summaries / Analysis" be appropriate then? The thing I'm really looking for is to get the word "plot" off so that other sections like "characters" can be added. -Matt 16:17, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "Harry Potter Summaries / Analysis" sounds like a great title to me. The analysis part seems key to mention, to show that it is our free speech... i.e., we have the right to analyze/critique copyrighted works. Though, perhaps I'd avoid the slash in the name. "Harry Potter Summaries and Analysis" perhaps? Indeed, the word plot is rather flat. MShonle 17:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree that "Harry Potter Summaries and Analysis" sounds good. Could you point me to where I shoud go to request the rename, or can you do it yourself? I hope this VFD business doesn't restrict the rename process. Not to rush, but since there are several "Keep" votes present already, can the vote be removed and the VFD notice on the page removed? An above comment mentioned this process can be slow and it seems a concensus has been reached here. -Matt 17:41, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I think we need to wait a little bit for the VFD discussion to end, but it certainly has no legal issues, and it appears well within wikibooks's goals... plus, it's not offensive or controversial either. So I think there's a good chance we'll keep it. Does anyone know if we can move pages while there is a VFD discussion? Conservatively, we might have to wait. MShonle 19:31, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Just call it the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter, and let it contain WikiCliffNotes with character analyses, plot analyses, and whatnot. (The name, albeit unoriginal, is an allusion to the Lurkers' Guide. Handling the Harry Potter book chapters in the same manner that the Lurkers' Guide handles episodes &mdash; with overviews, analyses, notes, and Hints That The Author Has Dropped (example) &mdash; appears to be a good way to proceed, avoiding the trap of simply writing Readers' Digest condensed versions of the books, and a form of annotation that I think would be within Wikibooks' remit.)  The module being discussed here would be renamed to Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Books.  See the suggested structure. Uncle G 19:46:15, 2005-08-02 (UTC)
 * I will start working on the guide you just created. Thanks. Once this VFD finishes I will look over the content and try to use some of it to form the new Muggles' guide. I will then redirect this book to the new Muggles' guide. I am also going to go through Wikipedia and set up new links to the new Muggles' guide. In a way, this book will become defunct, but towards a better good of creating the Muggles' guide. I think it will form an excellent textbook-type book and will be enjoyed. -Matt 01:02, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any discussion of "copyright violations" and "derivative works" needs to have a couple other phrases in there too: "fair use" and "freedom of speech." It's our right to talk about the works of others. Even if there is a letter from Rowling's publishers, that just means it's time to contact Larry Lessig, it's not time to lie down and let coorporations violate our rights by overstepping fair use. Indeed, we can even quote from the book if we like. Please, everyone, do read up more about fair use. MShonle 14:13, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess Wikipedians are so used to their weekly "so-called fair use is often not!!!" injections that they're unable to avoid ccopyright paranoia. But the shots must be wearing off as I've just changed my mind on the matter. I think we can keep this, at least until we receive a nasty letter or three. :) I've never really sat down to read all these confusing fair use laws, which is rather ridiculous considering every one of the 80+ images I've uploaded to WP has been claimed as such(!) ...I really should devote some time to that. Hm. Anyway thanks for the reminder! :) GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, I've been convinced that this can be arguably fair use, and regardless it evidently has its place here on Wikibooks. It's turned into a fine addition to our library! GarrettTalk 14:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - (IMHO Speedy Delete) This is a fork of Wikipedia pure and simple, and a stale fork at that. The content on Wikipedia seems to be better proofread and organized better (with images, etc.).  At the very least, if this is a trans-wiki from Wikipedia, please state so on the discussion pages here on Wikibooks, and potentially a link to the discussions about doing a transwiki on Wikipedia (if any), and a good demonstration that the content is being removed from Wikipedia as well.  So far, I don't see that at all.  Other than the purely copied content from Wikipedia, there is nothing else to this Wikibook.  I support a "Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter" or some other book, it is just that the current content does not justify it staying on Wikibooks right now.  If the Tesla book had to be deleted purely because it was a fork (and original content was added in that case), this more than qualifies as justification for deleting.  The #1 reason for the no fork rule is to avoid getting Wikibooks in the middle of an edit war on Wikipedia, especially when we don't necessarily understand all of the background on what started the edit war in the first place.  All of these entries have been written as encyclopedia-like articles as well, and not as a coherant strategy to actually write a book.  At the very least, get rid of the duplicated content (with a  tag on each module) and start putting something original that can't be incorporated into existing Wikipedia content.  --Rob Horning 23:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * My understanding of it was that the page has been deleted from Wikipedia, as this was seen as a better home for it. We can certainly get it more into the accademic realm, and that would make it less like any articles that may or may not still exist on the pedia. MShonle 23:33, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Although this guide will slowly fade away once its content comes into the new Muggles' guide, a deletion is unnecessary. The content still needs to be accessible. Wikipedia was not the place for the content and has been cleaned off. -Matt 01:08, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm arguing that the content that is duplicated from Wikipedia needs to be removed. I see that there is some chapter by chapter analysis that is not going to be in Wikipedia.  Still, it looks largely like a string of Wikipedia articles, and I would like to see larger justification as to why more Wikipedia articles couldn't be created for this content as a Wikiproject instead of making them a Wikibook, and what the general organizational principles are going to be.  Very few of the current "voters" for this Wikibook seem to be regulars to this page previous to this VfD coming on this list (not necessarily a reason by itself to discredit the votes, however).  Other Wikibooks have been deleted for having far more original content and less justification than what I've given above. --Rob Horning 18:29, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest that you familiarize yourself with the long-standing interrelationships between Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikisource, and how they operate in concert in situations such as these. Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * Some plot content was copied from Wikipedia because it is going to be cut from Wikipedia. If you look at the HP WikiProject you will see that all plot summaries on Wikipedia are planned for massive cutdowns. That makes all content on the Muggles' Guide original. Except for perhaps some small phrasing, content will not be copied. Over time the book will take over for extended analysis and important points of the series, something an annotated text should do. Wikipedia has its place for noting some of the Harry Potter series, but the Muggles' Guide seems to be seen by almost everyone as the place for a strategic guide of the storyline. -Matt 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Wikipedia is referring users to this link, and the WikiBook is IMHO a much better source for particular plot points that users are looking for. Anyone who wants simple spoilers can look any one of a thousand other places, and those who want to read the books will still be reading the books.  Rather, this is more useful to users who want to refer to a particular plot point or thread.  Regarding the post above, this is not a candidate for Speedy Delete.  The content posted has taken a long time to compile, which does not fall under the "no meaningful content" category, which is more often reserved for vandalism.  I don't see where it has been voted for deletion either.  Kermitmorningstar 00:43, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Where is the "meaningful content"? I see a few new stubs for chapter by chapter analysis that weren't there eariler, and it does look like there is some new content otherwise, but there also appears large sections of text that is lifted straight from Wikipedia.  Is the synopsis sections of the Wikipedia articles going to be deleted from Wikipedia?  Info on the discussion pages to detail how this stuff is being moved over really needs to be added, and perhaps a little history.  I also dislike the "end run" to avoid deletion by renaming the main page... that really smells to me. --Rob Horning 18:45, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said above, text is not going to be directly copied from Wikipedia. This is going to be a balanced action. One will make up for the other. Wouldn't annotations and analysis of a story be more appropriate as a book than as encyclopedia articles? The amount of meaningful content that will go into this book is massive. The index page could have thousands of entries. The story's books become detailed enough to deserve a book cataloging and referencing them. Every chapter will be analyzed, every character documented, each place visited explained, the list goes on and on. This book could be really excellent and I plan on putting a lot of time into it. The HP WikiProject does discuss in detail what to do with the plot summaries. Over time I plan on discussing the move (not copy) of content to the book since it seems more appropriate. -Matt 19:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I've done some more "research" in terms of trying to get the background on what is going on here. There appear to be a lot of "sock puppets" doing voting here, but that is another discussion.  My big concern right now is that this is mostly being put together by Wikipedia editors and I see Wikipedia styles coming over as well.  I'm willing to do a "wait and see" in regards to how this Wikibook will get put together.  As I mentioned earlier, quite a bit of discussion has been all over the place at Wikipedia, but links to that disucssion are hard to come by for somebody who doesn't frequent Wikipedia that much (such as myself).  I definitely see that there is some "fire" going on for some potential contributors, and this is something that is often lacking for books that get a VfD listing here with Wikibooks.  I hope this Wikibook does turn out and become something worth having here. --Rob Horning 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The assertion that this is "Wikipedia style" is complete rubbish. The organization of the Wikibook is nothing like how such a thing would be organized at Wikipedia, and very much like how other Wikibooks are organized.  Have a look around at some other Wikibooks.  If you are finding links to Wikipedia hard to come by, please read the start of this very discussion, where they were explicitly supplied by the very editors that you are accusing of being "sock puppets". Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * I accuse them of being "sock puppets" because their one and only edit on Wikibooks is to have a vote here in this discussion. That is hardly being a part of the Wikibooks community by any stretch of the imagination.  As far as having to search for discussions going on Wikipedia before trying to kill something on Wikibooks, I don't think that is my place.  If you are putting content on Wikibooks that is being moved from Wikipedia, you should try to point to that discussion on the new content here to justify the reasons why it is being moved.  Or if the page is being completely culled (as was the case here), the talk pages from that content should also be trans-wikied if for no reason that the discussion information shouldn't be lost as well.  And no, links at the beginning of this discussion are not all that is needed. --Rob Horning 17:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Harry Potter plots, the main page, hasn't been renamed at all, and still exists where it always was. Ironically, it actually should have been renamed.  Renaming things during a deletion discussion is fine, by the way.  (It simply has to be done carefully, although some of the considerations that exist on Wikipedia in relation to renaming, causing its prohibition unless an editor knows exactly what xe is doing, do not (yet) apply here.)  It is merging that causes GFDL problems, and that is thus disallowed during deletion.  No mergers have been performed in this case, of course. It's pretty apparent that there's plenty of meaningful content in the module.  (At one point, the 32KiB page size warning was appearing for one of the sub-pages.)  Asking "Where is the meaningful content?" when it is right there staring us all in the face is bizarre.  Indeed, whilst the erroneous assertion that it qualifies for speedy deletion is being made, this annotation of the Harry Potter series of books is already, even as just the skeleton that it is, better than some of the annotated texts that have existed on Wikibooks for years, such as The Once and Future King. Whilst cries are being made for its speedy deletion, it is giving every indication of having the potential to eventually be a flagship annotated text, demonstrating Wikibooks at its best. Any "detailing of how this stuff is being moved over" belongs in the transwiki log, not on the talk pages as you would have it.  Please familiarize yourself with the transwiki system.  (The anonymous editor who performed the transwiki appears not to be familiar with it, either, in fairness.  The process was, let us say, somewhat muddled at Wikipedia.  If it had been done in the usual fashion, I or one of the other editors more experienced with the transwiki system could have performed it in the more conventional manner.  I've added the missing log entries.) The reasons that the text is "lifted from Wikipedia" is because it is a transwiki, as already pointed out twice, in the nomination above and directly to you a second time.  The Wikipedia articles that were transwikied are now soft redirects.  (And in fact Wikipedia has at last gained a way to reference "new style" Wikibooks as a direct result of this.) This peculiar "forking of Wikipedia" argument, flying as it does in the face of many editors pointing out that this is a transwiki, asking as it does for things to be explained that are right there in plain sight, and asking as it does for an indication of what's being deleted from Wikipedia when links to both the relevant VFD discussions and the soft redirects that are now in place on Wikipedia have even been explicitly supplied earlier in this discussion, is baffling.  Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * All I asked for was to demonstrate that the content being placed on Wikibooks was different from what was already on Wikipedia. When this was originally posted as a VfD discussion, and when I placed my vote above, I couldn't tell any difference between the content on Wikipedia and the content here on Wikibooks.  I still don't.  Indeed I find that the commentary on Wikipedia has been organized and formatted in a much better manner, and to this point this is just a duplication of content from Wikipedia.  If, as you seem to be suggesting, that the content on Wikipedia is going to be deleted, I am much more supportive of this content here on Wikibooks.  If this is just a duplication of what is on Wikipedia, the Wikibooks content needs to be killed.  That is a simple argument that you don't seem to like.  Forking of Wikipedia content is expressedly prohibited on Wikibooks, especially when it appears that Wikipedia is doing a good enough job with that content.  I also fail to see why this content can't be left on Wikipedia, and the current structure of the Muggle's Guide seems to be a Macropedia, something also expressedly prohibited by Wikibooks standards. A case in point: Harry Potter (character) and Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter/Characters/Harry Potter are identical in scope and goal, both are encyclopedic in nature, and the one here on Wikibooks really should go, in addition to the fact that the Wikipedia version is much better done. For these reasons I feel I am more than justified to complain about how this is being put on here.  As far as "understanding the transwiki system", that is pure 100% bolvine excriment.  The whole point of this discussion on the VfD page is to "enlighten" others with your viewpoint, and if you need to point to places in the trans-wiki log, please do so.  That still doesn't mean that the content ought to be placed here on Wikibooks.  BTW, I will point to an external link about this discussion.  If there is content that is "orphaned" due to no Wikimedia project wanting to take it up, a discussion about where to put it is on Foundation-l.  I certainly hope that this Harry Potter content doesn't ends up that way.  Still, just because Wikipedia says that the content should be here on Wikibooks does not make it so, and if Wikibookians don't want it here, we should be free to kick it off as well. --Rob Horning 17:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'd like to direct you to what what Wikipedia is not because I think you are missing the point of this book. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Wikibooks is about annotated texts, instructional resources, and analysis of material (not easy to link to those points). I think it is inappropriate that you referenced Muggles' Guide pages in your argument because the book is less than a week old. Those pages are under heavy development and cannot be compared whatsoever. For instance, there is going to be far more to character pages. I planned on adding branches tonight. Wikipedia should not just stockpile HP information; some of it is really pushing what an encyclopedia should contain. Besides providing detailed information, the Muggles' Guide will provide annotation. That is hugely important. The abilities of the book have been discussed quite a bit by now and I'm not sure how else to explain here to you how the content is useful and well within guidelines of Wikibooks. Everyone else discussing agrees the book is fair for Wikibooks. -Matt 20:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Since you are invoking policy statements, check out What Wikibooks is not, and even if this content doesn't belong on Wikipedia, that still doesn't mean it belongs here. Fine, Wikipedia has decided to remove that content.  A Transwiki does not guarentee that the receiving project has to accept the new content.  In terms of Annotated texts, this wikibooks really doesn't qualify either.  Annotated text means that you have the text of the document (Such as The Bible) and you annotate or make notes about the content within the text.  Annotated lawbooks are very common, and this is a tradition that goes back mellenia, partiularly when books were copied by hand and some transcriptionists decided to do more than merely copy the material but also add their own comments about what they were copying.  In this regard, it would be illegal right now to do this because that would be a copyright violation.  A study guide like Lord of the Flies seems to be more like what you are trying to compare against.  OK, I'll bite.  Still, by doing a Transwiki you should have moved the content from the main articles of Wikipedia to the Transwiki namespace.  See: Transwiki  This isn't being done either.  This is a fork of current Wikipedia content and you know it.  By moving the content to the Transwiki namespace you are indicating that eventually it will be deleted. Wikibooks has a number of problems, and there is content that doesn't belong.  That is precisely the reason for the VfD discussion... to determine from the Wikibook community if it belongs.  It shouldn't be considered an insult but a vindication if you win the vote, or if it is controvercial for its placement that the controvercy is available for everybody to see it.  I am trying to argue some critical points and pointing out books like Biography of Nikola Tesla were deleted and the vote to undelete that wikibook seem to indicate a certain relutance to have any Wikipedia content here on Wikibooks.  By that standard, this Harry Potter book should not only have been deleted, but a speedy delete as well based on earlier community standards and sentiment.  That it isn't going through a speedy delete is just due to the fact that this disucssion is taking place.  I also say that the encyclopedia-like articles for each Harry Potter character do need to be removed, as it is duplication of effort and again a fork of Wikipedia content.  If you want to provide links to Wikipedia content in an organized fashion, that would be OK.  However, even the module that contains the links as it stands right now really ought to be on Wikipedia. Wikibooks is about writing books.  That is it should be at some point like the tangible dead-tree paper books that we grew up reading through school and libraries.  This implies chapter organization, appendicies, prefaces, and other structures commonly found in books.  An excellent example of this is with FHSST Physics:Index or Blender 3D: Noob to Pro, both BTW Wikibooks of the month.  Each book module is not something that stands alone, but rather something that builds on previous modules.  That is why it is a book and not a bunch of articles.  I don't see this kind of organization at all with this Muggle's Guide to Harry Potter, but rather something lifted straight out of Wikipedia as a bunch of disconnected articles. --Rob Horning 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * So what is it that you have been trying to get at with all this discussion? Are you holding this argument just because Tesla got deleted so swiftly? I can't really follow what you want to do anymore. You link to What Wikibooks is not but I don't see anything in there against this book. I am going to ask around Wikipedia and see if people will support a Transwiki to Wikibooks. I see the books you linked above being very similar to the Muggles' Guide. I'm not sure how to present to you how the Guide is both like a book and very useful. The structure is like a book, the articles form a coherent mass about the storyline, etc. Wikibooks editors agree the Guide looks very similar to other Wikibooks. You can't deny this book on its design when it is 2-3 days old either. I believe you may not know or care about the storyline to know how to structure it or what it can become. Anyway, this page is getting long. I'm getting warnings on size. Can an admin step in to maybe archive, branch things, or make a decision? Maybe you should wait on preaching this stance and work on helping develop the Wikibooks policy more. I didn't think VFD votes were the place for that. There is concensus except for your remarks which seem more suited for a policy discussion page rather than a book's VFD where many agree the book has validity. -Matt 01:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Read the WB:WIN. This wikibook is a Macropedia, which has always been specifically prohibited from Wikibooks.  You might find counter examples here on Wikibooks, but perhaps they need to go as well.  If this is a book, as it originally was pointed out, it should feel like a book.  Other Wikibooks projects have been able to do that.  From my viewpoint, this looks more like Memory Alpha but with a twist for Harry Potter.  That is my definition of a Macropedia, and should not be on Wikibooks.  This is not annotated text, which would be illegal, so it shouldn't be called such.  In addition, and I'll say it again if I have to, this is a fork of Wikipedia content and neither you nor Uncle G have convinced me that it is anything but that as well.  That is two strikes against this project from my viewpoint.  As a macropedia, it belongs on Wikicities or Wikipedia.  That is not my call to decide where, but I can complain about it being here on Wikibooks, and I am. In terms of "concensus" I got the current vote at 2 to keep and 1 to delete, with a whole bunch of people from Wikipedia that came to crash the party, but I guess we can count your vote to keep as well, together with Uncle G (inferred from comments but hasn't voted).  The other two votes I consider "sock puppets", or at least not relevant as they havn't really studied Wikibooks policies nor made any edits besides on this voting area.  In addition, admins aren't supposed to go strictly on votes but on the quality of the arguments, wheither it really violates Wikibooks policies, and how much damage a Wikibook could bring to the community as a whole.  I accept your disagreement, but respect the fact that I don't agree with you. --Rob Horning 03:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I still believe that you don't see the abilities of what the book can do, but hopefully time will show you. I understand how you see this as becoming a Macropedia, which is not the goal. You surely must see this at least as being an instructional resource and a place for analysis. I don't think this VFD should be about the structure of the book since it is so new (isn't the vote about it being useful? I'm all for instruction on how to structure things and how to write the book in a Wikibooks-acceptable way). The plots book can just as well be deleted since it has gone towards a greater good now. The Muggles' Guide however I see as having much potential. Could you point out out how the Guide should be more like a book? By what I see, it can just be restructured. I'd really like to stay inside the WikiMedia project system with this book. Wikibooks provides many useful connections to other projects. One thing I worry about is the Transwiki of content to the book from Wikipedia. As I see it, both Wikipedia and Wikibooks may contain some similar information; for instance, character biographies. That should be in a book yet still has encyclopaedic value. What happens in a case like this? I really think a book should be written on this subject and a lot of Wikipedia information should be in the book and not there, but I feel that most people see Wikipedia as the place for everything and will try to rewrite the content there. Maybe your response should start at the bottom of this VFD thread because these sublists are getting hard to find. Please give instruction though (admins too hopefully) on where this book should go to stay. Let's not wipe it because of faults when it can be changed to be great. -Matt 12:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral - I'm removing my objections to this Wikibook mainly because I think it was posted on the VfD list way too prematurely. I'm going to stand guard to see that doesn't happen again here.  --Rob Horning 14:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
 * To the admins, when can these books' VFDs be decided? It seems to have received a great deal of positive commentary from users and other administrators. All votes are Keep or Strong Keep with only one Strong Delete. Hasn't a concensus been reached? Most of the discussion here has been about how excellent the book is going to become and how the implementation is coming along. It's an eyesore to have the VFD sitting around when this vote looks like it's received five times as much voting as other articles on this page. -Matt 19:42, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks tends to take quite a bit more time to resolve issues, unlike Wikipedia. A discussion like this that takes a month or two is normal on Wikibooks, so don't get too excited if it lasts here for awhile before getting archived.  Just be assured that with the favorable commentary (particularly from veteran Wikibookians) listed above that it will not likely be deleted.  Keep contributing and proving the nay-sayers wrong, and you don't have to worry about the content going away. --Rob Horning 20:33, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Per the policy, the lag time is one week, so the discussion may be closed any time on or after 2005-08-06. Uncle G 21:20:28, 2005-08-03 (UTC)
 * What policy? Where?  How come that hasn't been enforced?  That may be Wikipedia policy, but Wikibooks certainly is not beholden to doing what Wikipedia always does.  Like I said, it tends to take more time to get things done on Wikibooks, so please be patient.  There really isn't a policy of any kind right now on Wikibooks, to be honest, certainly one that has been agreed upon by Wikibookians.  --Rob Horning 17:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From the deletion policy page: After one week, if the voters have mostly reached a consensus about what to do, the appropriate action will be taken by an administrator. If not the voting may continue until a consensus is reached. This part of the policy is not clearly defined, and needs to be sorted out. I would say a concensus has been formed since you are the only dissenter towards a Keep. Hopefully on August 6 this page will be determined Keep and archived. -Matt 20:27, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * By practice and custom (rather than what is on this page that was merely copied from Wikipedia), it does take much longer than that for something to occur here on Wikibooks. That is what I'm trying to point out.  And it seems as though you are trying to force the issue.  Besides, that "policy" certainly hasn't had any sort of formal vote on Wikibooks, unless you can show that vote to me.  I'm just trying to tell you to "chill out" and not stress over trying to make immediate decisions on Wikibooks, particularly when it appears as though you are new to this project. --Rob Horning 22:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Why would past practice mean this book's VFD needs to take months? I surely hope Wikibookians don't just let things sit for kicks. If the point has been made, why not make a decision? This VFD was started by a user who has only come here to nominate it for VFD. I and the others speaking here plan to do work at Wikibooks. I have intentions to develop the Guide. I'd like to get down to it and get this issue over with. -Matt 01:29, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It is because we are usually trying to sit down to actually write a book, which answering all these points is keeping me from doing so. Most Wikibookians are wrapped up in their little project, and it takes even more time to come up for politics than it noramlly does for Wikipedia.  I'll say it again..... Don't force the issue.  You are the one who is new here, and besides, I'm still arguing my point.  As far as I'm conerned, the "7-day" grace period clock you are talking about has been reset to today and right now. --Rob Horning 03:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep &mdash; this appears to be a good home for this content, hopefully the formatting as Wikibooks will continue, it's good to get the chance to vote to keep for a change.;) Geo.T 01:27, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the decision is keep, please delete Harry Potter plots and subpages; they simply replicate the Muggles' guide book section.  I created Harry Potter plots and I agree with its move to the Muggles' guide.  I don't believe anything links to Harry Potter plots, so a redirect would be a waste. &mdash; 131.230.133.185 04:44, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree. The plots page has been made obsolete now. -Matt 13:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whats going on here? I just linked to a harry Potter article on wikibooks from pedia and find that what has just been deleted from pedia is now being threatened with deletion on books. is this a plot? If the people who allowed it to be removed in the first place had been told it would be totally deleted would they have agreed? Anyway, I don't see why you want to delete references to one of the most popular books of all time. Did no one notice the number of people who are interested in this? Sandpiper 08:11, 8 August 2005 (UTC) (see also user sandpiper on pedia)
 * Much controversy has come from which domain the content is really suited for. It needs to fit the goals of Wikibooks to stay here. I think a concensus has been reached that this book is a Keep since adequate proof has been shown that this book does not desire to become a Macropedia and will really provide useful commentary/analysis. -Matt 13:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
 * by the way, exactly what is a macropedia and does it have a particular meaning in the context of wikibooks?Sandpiper 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
 * See What_Wikibooks_is_not. -Matt 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


 * STRONG KEEP for the Book, delete for the wikipedia plot synopses. All superdetail should be in the book and the encyclopedia should be kept encyclopedia. however the book itself should definitely be kept, it's great, i want to read it!


 * Further Comment. Ok, I have read this lot twice now and have some better idea what is going on. I also wrote some items into the 'book' in the style I felt like writing them. I fear there is not enough interest here for anyone to start discussing them, but I think on pedia they would be deleted in 30 seconds. A faction in pedia does not like analysis. I find this regrettable since in the context of a work of fiction there is inevitably going to be insufficient information for cast-iron conclusions. I think they are wrong in refusing to allow such stuff in pedia as I think joe public would want to read an article which told him the best available information, even if it was not cast iron fact.  Similarly, I do not really see why they have become so averse to detailed plot synopsis. This is a publishing phenomenon being discussed here. It merits long articles. I am not an encyclopaedic purist and find both these things useful in the correct context.


 * Now, on the other hand, I can see there is enough material here to create a book about these books. JKR has spent an awful lot of time creating a set of books which are deviously inter-related yet extremely honest in the information they present to a reader. They repay careful study, and this does not come across at all in what is being permitted on pedia. It is also extremely hard to obtain on the internet generally, where there are a vast number of repetitious posts about interesting aspects of Harry Potter, but little definitively organised stuff. The same arguments recur repeatedly, so are hardly any more 'original research', but are not collected well anywhere. Organisation of the pedia articles is also a mess.


 * Mostly i think this lot all belongs together somewhere, splitting it onto two sites is daft, and someone needs to knock some heads together. At the moment 'pedia very much has a head start in creating their harry Potter content. Which is not to say that 'books could not nick it, reformat it, and reproduce it in a better way. This would produce something which seems to me very akin to your posted definition of a 'macropedia'. Though i do not see why a book entitled 'everything you wanted to know about physics', would not also fit the definition of macropedia as an 'in-depth encyclopedia on a specific topic'. But I can see people on here complaining precisely the opposit of what is being said in 'pedia'. There they will not allow analysis, you will not allow archived facts. 'jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean.....' Lets hope for a happy ending here too.Sandpiper 00:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Kept - Please STOP voting, and continue your discussions in the relevant talk page. Thankyou. - Aya T C 02:54, 9 August 2005 (UTC)