Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Purpose

Purpose
This is quite a substantial book, so I want to take care over it, and to give the author plenty of time to move it if the decision is that it should be deleted. This simply does not look like a textbook similar to one that would be used in a class. It may be original research too, Jguk 22:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmm... just a comment. This is just part three of a much larger book... Thinking And Moral Problems, Religions And Their Source, Purpose, and Developing A Universal Religion are all one big book without, as I can see, a top level organizing book. Maybe I'll comment on whether to keep or delete this later, but at this time, I'm just noting these others' existence. -- LV (Dark Mark) 23:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Some text in some of the other parts (but only some) might be worth preserving for use in books on religion and philosophy. Most of all of the pages in the larger book fall foul of our "textbook" policy. I have found the "front page" of this book, however. It is on User:David Hockey. Does anyone know whether this sort of text is suitable for Wikisource? Jguk 07:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, LV, for your email. I had not noticed this vfd entry.

The four-part book notes that people invented religions to solve “moral” problems, and that civilisation will not survive if a rational way to do this is not found. (Because existing belief-based religions do not seem capable of doing this peacefully.)

The book is intended for inquiring students (usually at college/university age, but the context has been interesting to people of any age).

I cannot judge if it is suitable for Wikibooks. (I’m actually too close to the book to judge if it is of any use at all!)

I have just looked at Wikisource for the first time. Perhaps it might fit there. Ideally the four parts should be presented as one whole “text,” but that might make it too long for a Wiki. David Hockey 15:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks as much like a textbook to me as many other books here and more than most. Why wouldn't it be used in a class?  Perhaps the problem is that the word textbook is so ill defined; perhaps we should drop it in favour of a list of objective characteristics that a book must or must not possess.  Here is how AskOxford defines 'textbook':

• noun a book used as a standard work for the study of a subject. • adjective conforming to an established standard; exemplary.


 * It leaves a lot of room for interpretation. --kwhitefoot 11:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Probably keep? Looks like part of a philosophy book to me. Pcu123456789 00:38, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: It sounds like a homebrew philosophy. I don't think Wikibooks is the place for that sort of thing. Have philosophers taken any notice of these ideas? If not, I think this qualifies as original research. Also, the statement of the books' intent as "to explain why the world needs a 'universal religion.'" strikes me as POV. Could we get some commentary from someone in philosophy on this? --Brian Brondel 19:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Purpose ... I think that the idea was to edit these four textbooks into a neutral point of view, but from what I know that has not happened. Unlike some plain classroom textbooks, Wikibooks are not supposed to promote a particular point of view. What is Wikibooks states that "Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining words, et cetera." (I have a database dump of Wikibooks that should contain Purpose and the other three parts of "Developing A Universal Religion", so in the future I can distribute copies if I so choose.) --Kernigh 16:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. There is some good substance here, but based on the fact that it is a blatant (and I think an unfixable) violation of NPOV, I dont think we can keep this here. Considering the work that has gone into it, I think that we should provide every opportunity for this to be moved to a more appropriate venue. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is deleted, will readers of the three other parts of the book be able to access it to complete their study? David Hockey 12:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that I made a mistake when separating the four parts of my book. I think now that they would be better understood as one book. Please let me explain by summarising what they try to state.

Part One: Thinking And Moral Problems. This explains that people “behave” to attain purposes. This is true whether the behaviour is toward achieving a practical purpose or a moral purpose. (see Summary to Chapter Three)

Part Two: Religions And Their Source. This suggests that attempting to achieve the purposes offered by existing religions creates more problems than it solves. (see Summary to Chapter Six)

Part Three: Purpose. This part searches for a realistic purpose that might be used when developing a moral code to suit modern civilisations. (See Summary to Chapter Ten)

Part Four: Developing A Universal Religion. Suggests how a suitable purpose can help communities build a moral code (and even a religion). (See Summary to Chapter Fourteen)

I do not care what purpose humanity selects. I suggest one, not to push my opinion, but to show how one might be sought. I also suggest how moral codes could be devolved from a “purpose,” again not to push my opinion, but to show how codes may be derived. (The book actually promotes the formations of online communities, like Wikipedia or Wikibooks, to develop a suitable “purpose” and relevant moral codes.)

Thus, deleting Purpose would reduce the value of the other parts (unless Purpose was somehow accessible through Wikibooks).

What is the best solution to this dilemma? Should all of the Parts be combined to make “one book”? Or should Purpose be removed to some other site? Or? David Hockey 18:30, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed my delete vote from above, and I think that you should have time to be able to merge your 4 books into a single one. It may be better for everything involved to have all the related materials under a single title. However, this book still seems to be in violation of the NPOV or "No Original Research" line, which is cause for summary deletion. I would suggest perhaps, if you have the time and energy, that you search for a new wikihost where a work like this would be more accepted and appreciated. Otherwise, you would do well to remove any POV violations (if any), and to cite resources to demonstrate that this isn't original research on your part. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * After some thought I have decided to leave things as they are. I would not want to make one book of all four parts because, if one of them, say Purpose, does not meet Wikibooks’ requirements, then it should be deleted. That would delete all of the other parts if they were combined, even if some of them by themselves might be acceptable to Wikibooks.
 * I like what everyone is doing (especially the administrators) and I’m happy with whatever judgement you make. (And, if Purpose is deleted, then perhaps others might write an acceptable replacement!) David Hockey 12:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Kept No consensus to delete, and we need to clean some entries off this page. I would perhaps suggest that this book could be merged to wikiversity, but because that project is only in a "beta" stage, that might not be a sound option either. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)