Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Rising Tide

Rising Tide
My new proto-pamphlet wikibook is seen as violating WB:NOR and WB:SOAP by a respected administrator, but I disagree because the facts summarized are from secondary sources of peer reviewed scholarly research, and the questions I've asked are open with no clear answers, as I've described in detail at Talk:Rising Tide. I respectfully ask that the community endorse keeping the text.

Also, I am interested in learning from the community how I might edit and expand the book in such a way as to present an adequate abstract of the facts stated in the external links without producing original research or using Wikibooks as a soapbox. I truly hope that we are able to freely summarize and question the reliable sources drawn from epidemiological and economic data on Wikibooks without running afoul of the policies here. Should the community decide that such texts are inappropriate for Wikibooks, I will gladly work on it elsewhere. 71.198.176.22 (talk) 08:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity. This "pamphlet" violates, in particular, the portion of WB:SOAP that states that Wikibooks are not "propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Wikibooks modules must always adhere to the neutral point of view". You have statements like "Will we as a society reach across the boundaries of class and political party to lift all boats, or will we all sink together?" and "Is this the beginning of the end of the class war?".  References to support statements from a non-neutral point of view don't change the fact they are not neutral.  Sources such as "The Left Right Paradigm is Over: It's You vs. Corporations" are not neutral and are more editorials.  Other sources that have been given have been synthesized into a wholly new interpretation. – Adrignola talk 13:28, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a new book (not even 24 hours old yet) and as such should be given time to develop as mentioned in the deletion policy. As mentioned there time would be better spent helping to develop the book to meet our requirements. The statement about lifting or sinking boats seems neutral to me. Accuracy is more important than a statement being neutral if you are citing sources in which case including references is the right thing to do. Sources don't need to be neutral either, but different perspectives need to be accurately represented and not omitted by including multiple sources that accurately reflect different perspectives on the subject. However I believe synthesizes does violate WB:NOR because synthesizes involves research, and a person's personal interpretation of what the facts are. I believe the intent of WB:NPOV, WB:NOR, and WB:SOAP are to place an expectation that we explain facts objectively and in a profession manner rather than act as interpretors of what the facts are. --dark lama  13:59, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If the fact that a book is new would preclude an RFD on it, that cannot be reconciled with the statement at Deletion policy that a speedy deletion nomination can be turned into an RFD if there are any doubts. Most speedy deletion nominations will be placed on a page shortly after it is created. – Adrignola talk 15:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think this is reconcilable. I think speedy deletion nominations are usually only placed on pages shortly after they are created when they have no meaningful content, consist entirely of nonsense or vandalism, or are test edits. IOWs works which preclude the possibility that there were good intentions involved in there creation. Other works have usually been around awhile before being nominated for speedy deletion. YMMV though. Also: We must treat newcomers with kindness and patience. Newcomers, by definition, lack knowledge about the way we do things. --dark lama  16:37, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is a rule preventing essays from secondary sources about more expensive issues than climate change we need to know which one it is. 208.54.5.71 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol redirect vote.svg Transwiki to Wikiversity. I understand the need to let a new book develop, though at the same time we commonly make an exception when the book clearly falls outside our scope. For example when video game guides are not allowed time to develop.  I think that was the feeling for starting this discussion, that this book couldn't possibly be improved to fall under our scope.  So I don't think it is in appropriate to discuss.
 * Glancing through the references many do strike me as blogs/editorials, and thus not particularly reliable. Even where they are reliable sources, there is one very consistent point of view, which would make it very difficult to produce a neutral book from.
 * Even asking questions can have a point of view. For example the question "Will we as a society reach across the boundaries of class and political party to lift all boats, or will we all sink together?" presents us with two possibilities: either our society will put aside class and political boundaries to reduce inequality in wealth distribution or all of our collective wealth decreases. This point of view ignores a rather large section of free market economists who feel the best way improve everyone's collective wealth is to deregulate markets. While I advocate neither position.  The suggestion that these are the only two options presents a particular point of view.  I am mentioning this to point out how asking a question can present a particular point of view.
 * More problematic overall is that I am not sure what this book intends to teach. Instead, the comments by the author seem to suggest that the pamphlet is intended to investigate (or at least ask) various questions based on recent literature.  This to me sounds like the prototypical example of what wikiversity views as a learning resource.  Wikiversity would allow both a POV'ed articles and OR provided certain disclaimers are posted on the pamphlet and user talk page.  In the interests of being newbie friendly I suggest we transwiki, but over all I agree that the book doesn't have much hope of developing into a neutral text. Thenub314 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)


 * PS. (edit conflict) I am not quite sure what you mean, there is no ruling preventing essays from using secondary sources. On the other hand there is policy preventing essay as a whole.  That is item 2 of WB:SOAP. Thenub314 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)