Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Religion books by User:David Hockey

==Religion books by User:David Hockey==

David Hockey has painstakingly posted a lot of stuff about the religion of the future and humanity's purpose in life. Unfortunately none of this is even remotely NPOV. If you read through it, it is full of passages like "We possess free will because small particles are not causally constrained" and "progress necessitates recognizing that the universe (and all that it contains and everything that happens) is rational." It is the author's personal thoughts, not a textbook that can be revised and updated. In short, it does not belong on this website. Shii (talk) 00:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you know what Deletion policy says about highly biased POV books that violate our Neutral point of view policy? --DavidCary (talk) 02:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that the question being raised here is not really whether the work is biased, but properly whether it is original research (and perhaps advocacy). --Pi zero (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment The four books listed on David Hockey's user page are apparently parts of a previously published book of his. David Hockey inquired in January about giving them to Smashwords.  There is now a book available at Smashwords by David Hockey, published on February 23, called Developing a Universal Religion: Why one is Needed and How it might be Derived.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I don't think it is proper to initiate a VFD on a specific author, generalizing the discussion to all content contributed, especially if he has been non destructive and very prolific in his well intentioned contributions. This makes it very difficult to analise and debate the points advanced I only have taken a look and to what I understand they all seem to relate to Philosophy/Theology. I still can't come to terms with how the NPOV is used on Wikibooks (this is a simplified on Wikipedia since the scope is very limited, not the case here). I always cringe when a deletion is proposed on the basis of a NPOV violation when the contributors to those works aren't being aggressive, unapproachable or actively preventing others to fix the NPOV issues of the works.
 * I would ask the nominator to reformulate the proposal (even to enable the standard archival procedure) on a per-work format.
 * As for the argumentation with the phrases (out of context as they are). I can't see any problem with them, it all depends on at what scale of science/physics the affirmations are being made. --Panic (talk) 04:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I am nominating the four works listed on his user page, not anything else he may have written (I don't see anything else?). If people don't want these to be deleted, would they be okay if I went and started removing statements I disagreed with from the book? Shii (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You are free to edit the works as you like but you must be civil about it, removing/censoring or erasing content if not outright wrong or unfixable isn't productive work, see the Be bold policy and in doubt talk to the original editor he seems agreeable to dialog. In any case you have also to be careful not to promote a contrary view point but to archive the balance you say is lacking.
 * Did you understand the problem with this proposal if you can and are willing to proceed with a deletion request, fallow the normal procedure of nominating each book independently and tagging the front pages of the nominated books as a target for a VFD (without deleting this discussion, even if I don't see how it will now be archived). You can probably change the title of this thread for the first book nomination (or the one those phrase belong to). --Panic (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd really rather not, because I like adding to legitimate books a lot more than deletion discussions. You can close this if nobody else wants to delete these books. I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the admins. Shii (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)