Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter (2)

Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter
With all the video game guides leaving, I guess that this needs to go as well. I'll start looking for a GNU Harry Potter wiki to move it to. Gerard Foley 21:21, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a wiki I found for it. http://harrypotter.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. I've started to copy some pages over. Gerard Foley 00:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I hope that you stop copying the pages and also revert what you've done. Please, look into what each project is doing before you started pushing around data. That site is quite different from the Muggles' Guide, both in terms of topics and quality. Pages here do not belong there and vice versa. Very different goals exist. This topic is also redundant since this book has already survived a VfD. -Matt 00:20, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment, would a book on the Chronicles of Narnia be allowed on Wikibooks? What about an indepth guide to Shakespeare? How is this book sufficiently different from the previous examples enough that it must be deleted from Wikibooks? --Dragontamer 06:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You have the correct idea regarding this book's role. It can be used as a tool for deeper analysis into characters, places, and many other things in this highly popular book series. The book is not fan-cruft and provides a lot of great information in my opinion that readers might not always recognize. This book is no different from what you've mentioned and I think an uneducated decision was made to list the book here, a second time. -Matt 00:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Annotated texts for study very much do belong on wikibooks. I don't see this book as being a pure walkthrough. The analysis, in particular, sets it apart. Note also that the video game guides are going because they are not textbooks, but that does not mean that a textbook cannot be written about video games, Jguk 07:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Lets set it straight now then. What is the definition of a textbook? What makes a textbook a "textbook"? Content? Layout? What?


 * I can't think of a single definition of "textbook" that would include Chess and exclude games and Wikiversity. --Dragontamer 11:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This book has already been debated (seen here) and the VfD-survived mark is on the main talk page. Quite a bit of discussion has already taken place regarding how this book fits into Wikibooks' goals. This book is also one of the most popular and upcoming books here at Wikibooks and has been on WB:COTM for three months. I really think this should be a Speedy Keep since little has changed regarding policy and this book's place with that policy. I see no connection to video game guides. This is not some book walkthrough -- the Muggles' Guide is full of analysis and can be treated very similarly to an annotated text. I see this as a quick slap-on of a VfD when the VfD-er very well did not even look at what the book was covering. -Matt 00:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Concerning Jimbos remarks today, the "accredited institution" metric isn't optional: It's part of the wikimedia charter. As such, we have to ask ourselves if this is a valuable educational resource, or if it is not. I beleive that it is valuable, as anything that encourages young children to read is valuable. I might propose that we find a way to move this into the "Wikijunior" realm of things, so that we can purposely target yourng children with this one, although I understand if people don't agree with that sentiment. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * (Edit conflict) To quote Jimbo again, "Is there a course taught at an accredited institution of learning, which requires as a textbook, the sort of book in question?"? Just because the book is popular or has been on WB:COTM for three months or has even had a past vfd debate doesn’t matter. There has recently been a substantial change in what Wikibooks allows, ordered by Jimbo, and a fresh debate needs to takes place on the future of this book. Gerard Foley 00:29, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia had the same debate at its birth - should it be rigid or capable of evolution. I support evolution. Make the rules wide enough for us to contain tentative courses. RobinH 09:34, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * In response, I would say that yes, it is very feasable that a elementary school classroom would include annotated harry potter discussions and lectures. Harry Potter has been demonstrated to be an excellent vehicle for teaching kids to read, and getting children interested in books. To say that I can't name a classroom that does teach such a subject only indicates that I don't spend an unhealthy amount of time snooping around little children in school. I'm sure somebody could be teaching such a subject. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Thousands of elementary, middle, and high schools in the United States and abroad have included the Harry Potter book series in their libraries. The books are seen as a revolution towards getting children interested in reading books again. Numerous teachers and professors have also read the books in a classroom setting. Many, many readers could benefit from a guide alongside their HP books, just like notes on a Shakespearean play. -Matt 21:58, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know I will take flak for voicing my opinion for this because of my name, but I'll speak my mind anyway. I was going to come here and vehemently push for the deletion of the Muggle's Guide. I doubted its use here on WB. However, after just a couple of minutes searching I came up with the following:
 * University of Denver:
 * Maryland University:
 * James Madison University:
 * Memorial University:
 * University of Alabama:
 * Kansas State University:


 * I wanted to delete, but for now I'd say hold on to it a bit longer. -- LV (Dark Mark) 22:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Omi
 * Based on the courses cited by LV, Keep. I'd also like to see if the editors of the book could use Transwiki:Notes on etymology in the world of Harry Potter, and perhaps get it out of the transwiki pseudo-namespace. If it can't be used, then it should be VfD'd. Gentgeen 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was brought to my attention a few months ago and I wasn't sure what to do with it. It's rather small and I'm not sure where it could be placed. It may not be all that useful for the Guide, but someone else may be able to think up a place for it. -Matt 19:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Very Stong Keep - This debate was already rehashed as a very, very lengthy VfD that went on and on for some time. Why this is even being reopened without even so much as a mention of the previous VfD, nor raising any new objections beyond proving my point that removing video game guides is harmful to Wikibooks.  This is not a video game walkthrough, and should not even be framed in that debate at all.  There has also been considerable debate over this Wikibook on Wikipedia as well, and any substantial debate and discussion should at least reference that material.... particularly if you want it removed.  The existance of a Harry Potter Wiki is irrelevant to this discussion as well, as the removal of this content is only if it violates Wikibooks policies.  So far I don't see any specific policy that it seems to violate other than my previous objection about being a macropedia.  And it (with the authors of this Wikibook) has proven to have resolved that objection quite some time ago.  --Rob Horning 10:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Wikibooks does included annotated texts. Whether or not actual classrooms use Harry Potter books specifically hardly matters compared to the fact that many places could potentially use Harry Potter books in the classroom. This point of course is made moot by the fact that we can demonstrate classes that do use this material. Also, this book serves as an excellent example for future annotated texts to come to wikibooks. Other then the original call for a VfD, on the basis that this book should go because "all the video game guides [are] leaving", there is no good reason to delete this. Barring any objections grounded in policy, I say we mark this one kept as quickly as possible. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)