Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Stone Masonry

Stone Masonry
This was tagged for speedy deletion for being encyclopædic. I don't think it is, but am unsure whether this should be deleted. For me the question is whether there is something useful here &mdash; whether this can be turned into a useful wikibook &mdash; or whether this is just nonesense. --Swift (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Emblem-fun.svg|15px]] I agree because this is a very weird page. It is not about the craft of Masonry, I think it is more about the fraternal order of Freemasonry. Even then, it's not really about freemasonry either. I'm having a very hard time figuring out what this is, how it would possibly develop, and whether it has any value at all as is. I say we delete it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 04:07, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment Actually, I think it is about masonry. It begins with discussing why there isn't more written on the subject, the conclusion being that the elite looks down on professions related to manual labour. It also has a short paragraph on the origins of stone masonry (though not really staying on topic) and a very short one on building construction materials. --Swift (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]]-Delete Per Whiteknight Red4tribe (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep I've decided to thrown in a `keep` vote since I don't see this book &mdash; peculiar as it may be &mdash; as harmful to our project. --Swift (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I kinda liked it. I think it could become a nice reference work on the practice of masonry.  --Jomegat (talk) 01:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I must say Whiteknight is right, this is a rather strange start to a textbook, but I see no reason it can't be improved, and it's not really a violation of any policy. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep - The book was started 6 June 2008, I don't see any reason for a deletion at this time. Concerns about the content/evolution are valid and should be made clear to the people working on it (without putting the "community" spot light on it), as such VFD shouldn't be a first choice for it. I see it only as a good way to alienate new/unexperienced contributors. --Panic (talk) 05:13, 24 June 2008 (UTC)