Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Social Postulates

Social Postulates
This seems to be total gibberish. I think it may be some sort of joke or vandalism. --D'Arby 03:42, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * D'Arby is a vandal from Wikipedia. I've taken his VfD tag from the Module.  There is no justification for a VfD for this new book.  --Zephram Stark 04:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I've restored the tag, the VFD process needs to run its course. The content in question seems to be pretty off-the-wall.  You might also call it original research.  (I'll just ignore the preceding wild personal attack).  --D'Arby 05:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm moving to the archive because this VfD is out of order due to the new Wikibook being discussed. --Rob Horning 06:20, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Social Postulates
This is not a textbook. It violates several Wikibook policies, namely: The front page indicates that the author is simply trying to use this "book" as a discussion forum for philosophical views. Apparantly, this editor was banned from Wikipedia for excessive argumentation on numerous articles (see ), and he has moved on to this site. So, the whole point of this book is to get people to have discussions with him about "social postulates" (whatever that means). It doesn't look like anyone has taken him up on this (not counting the user's comments that he pasted from Wikipedia, possibly without that user's knowledge). Since this really isn't a textbook, it should be deleted. --D&#39;Arby 00:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikibooks is not a free wiki host or webspace provider
 * Wikibooks is not a place to publish original works
 * Wikibooks is not a soapbox
 * Wikibooks is not for developing new Wikimedia projects
 * Consider this edit at Wikipedia, where he admits that he is "...in the process of creating a Wikiforum where postulate hierarchies can grow..." This Wikibook seems to be what he was talking about.
 * Most of the information on Social Postulates/Information Collection was pasted over from his Wikipedia talk page, which he admits. It isn't textbook material, it's just a philosophical discussion he was having with another user.


 * Comment - The issues of this user on Wikipedia are irrelevant here on Wikibooks, but I would agree that there are some problems with the way that this content has developed. It should say something that no other user has added any content to the hive of pages connected to this Wikibook other than the original contributor.  The other major contribution of this user, Futurology, does seem to be more of a book than this project, and I think invoking the not for developing a new Wikimedia project clause in WB:WIN is applicable in this case as well.  I think Wikibooks would serve very well as a seed Wiki for new concepts, but it has been made abundantly clear to me by at least four different members of the Wikimedia Foundation Board that this is not the case, not withstanding the objections by Anthere specifically in regards to the Wikimania content that would seem to refute this philosophy.  Jimbo seems to think Wikibooks should be more pure textbooks even than what is currently here as well. Philosophy books as a whole tend to present problems in a way, because it is often difficult to determine POV accuracy or turn it into a NPOV document.  There are other philosophical books on Wikibooks, and they do show up from time to time in the VfD forum.  A part of me want to say just leave this Wikibook alone and let it die in peace, with the idea that by allowing a forum for this user to express himself he isn't doing any other damage to other Wikimedia projects.  The other side of me is suggesting that perhaps content of this nature needs to go so Wikibooks is more just textbooks.  Keep in mind that the issue of if Wikibooks should be strictly non-fiction has only recently been resolved, and the full extent of what Wikibooks should or should not contain is still up in the air, and we have other content that is clearly not a textbook either.  --Rob Horning 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems like something that so blatantly violates four major Wikibook policies should be deleted. I realize that there can be a gray area about what "books" are appropriate, but it seems to me that this one isn't anywhere near the gray area! It also isn't an issue of Philosophy books, which I understand could produce POV problems.  This isn't a philosophy book, it is an attempt by the author to create a discussion forum about philosophy. I can't see how that is an appropriate use of Wikibooks.  He should start a blog, or find a personal webpage for this. --D&#39;Arby 20:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess I'm trying to say that I agree with you mostly. I would like to see some other user input on this book first to see what they might say about it, and is certainly a worthy VfD candidate at the moment to get some community feedback about this book.  --Rob Horning 23:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't see any prospect for this becoming a textbook.  I notice that there was some problem with an earlier VfD being premature.  My vote here assumes that there is no longer any such problem.  --JMRyan 01:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Kernigh's vote below suggests that I should elaborate a bit. WB:WIW says "Wikibooks hosts instructional resources."  Social Postulates is not an instructional resource.  WB:WIW says "You may not host your own website, blog, or wiki at Wikibooks."  WB:WIW says "Wikibooks is not a place to publish primary research ...."  Social Postulates is a cross between a blog and primary research.  --JMRyan 21:07, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep The edit summary from my edit was: "Remove not-textbook cleanup tag. This is a textbook. Wikibooks has not conquered the world yet, and we cannot label something "not a textbook" simply because it violates WB:WIW." I do not like how this book was sent to VFD. The allegation that Social Postulates is not a "textbook" is distracting from the issue that we would be debating, which is whether or not this book satisfies WB:WIW. --Kernigh 22:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So, you keep vote is based on the process rather than the content of the book? I put the cleanup notice, and posted comments on the talk page a month ago to try to get some other input on the content.  No one made any contributions, so I then put it on VfD.  It is clearly a spectacular violation of WB:WIW.  If "textbook" means what is defined on WB:WIW, then this is not a textbook.  --D&#39;Arby 23:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Having examined the book, I now agree with JMRyan and D'Arby that Social Postulates violates WB:WIW. I just think that we are confused over how to use the word "textbook". --Kernigh 19:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know the truth about what is going on here, I would be happy to explain it. If you have checkip powers, you'll be able to figure it out for yourself. There is a vandal at Wikipedia named JW1805. Here he is accusing Wikipedia's User:D'Arby of being a sockpuppet of me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:D%27Arby&action=history. Now checkip w:User:JW1805 against the Wikibooks User:D'Arby. They are the same person. --Zephram Stark 05:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete If what Zephram Stark says is true. But I don't think anyone here has checkip powers yet :-(. --Dragontamer 04:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Developers have checkip power. --Zephram Stark 19:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep for three months — I've expanded the book into a full project proposal so that the tasks can be automated. It is beneficial to see the information in book form for the next 3-5 months until the project is up and running. At that time, I plan to delete the book unless someone else wants to use it as a textbook to document the unique philosophical questions raised and answered during the formation of the project. --Zephram Stark 15:45, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. This bad so bad, it's not developed, linked badly, and needs cleanup. And it doesn't seem to be a textbook. --German Men92 23:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Social Postulates isn't a textbook until it is finished, but unlike other books in this project, it absolutely requires multiple user input to demonstrate the principles. When I started the book, I assumed that Wikibooks would be comparable in activity to Wikipedia, but it isn't. Social Postulates is a more progressive tack on textbook writing that could be enabled in a group setting, but it's kind of hard to show consensus in action with only one contributor. Since the unfinished book isn't hurting anything, we might want to let it stay to see if anyone can change it into something that will draw more interest. I would be willing to assist in any way I can. --Zephram Stark 17:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Proposed Action — Unless there are any objections, I propose that the VfD page not be used as a tool of vengeance. I move that we strike this VfD until it is nominated by someone other than a sockpuppet of User:JW1805. --Zephram Stark 15:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Careful, Zephram... -- LV (Dark Mark) 02:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there something in what I said with which you disagree? --Zephram Stark 03:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Deleted, based on 4-1 consensus. Gentgeen 09:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)