Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Sufism/Nasrudin (2)

Sufism/Nasrudin
{| cellspacing="5" cellpadding="5" style="border: 1px red solid; background: #ffffcc; width: 95%; margin: auto; color: #000000;" | style="width: 40px; text-align: center;" | | Keep by consensus. --Swift (talk) 15:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC) |- | colspan="2" style="border-top: 1px red dashed;" |

This was suggested to get moved to Wikisource. I can barely make sense of this. It seems that Nasrudin is a fictional character, used here to create little stories that teach a lesson, which is briefly interpreted for each one. I don't see how this is a textbook, nor how this isn't original research. Wikisource doesn't want it because "It is unclear how much of the Sufism material is is the work of Nasrudin, and how much is commentary. The author of material here needs to be clearly identified, and previously published. Eclecticology 09:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)" Apparently this has survived a VFD, but I've missed it in the archives. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 18:35, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete - agree that this is original research. Νεοπτόλεμος ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 20:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * per above --- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 21:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * (wow). These really should be compared with parables or fables as far as Sufism is concerned.  Certainly Nasrudin' stories as seen as quite valid by many & from time to time get quite wide coverage.  It is definitely not original research (I have a copy of a Nasrudin book from many years ago!) -- Herby  talk thyme 08:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * - reading the stories I think some may be inventions. I'll dig out my book & check when I get a chance.  The "interpretations" are "interesting" - maybe they need some work but equally maybe not!  Nasrudin stories (as I understand it) are intended to be rather Zen like -- Herby  talk thyme 09:52, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol delete vote.svg|15px]] Delete - Over half the article is interpretations that mean nothing.

"Not really," said the goat. "Your name is written inside the cover." Interpretations It looks like an excuse to write up weird things that make no sense in combination with an obscure piece of fiction. 12.107.188.130 (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Talking animals are a dime a dozen; but a goat that can read, now THAT is a miracle.
 * I've seen many of these before. While many are confusing they're certainly not original research but I'm only refering to the ones I've heard of before. Interesting. --ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep but eliminate the interpretations unless they're sourced to someone. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 00:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * If they are pre-existing stories, they may be better suited for wikisource then here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment - Right, I forgot we figured out that they're not original. So if we elimiate interpretation, then all that's left is the stories themselves, and it should be moved to Wikisource - note that this solves the concerns raised by Eclecticology. So this is a [[Image:Symbol redirect vote.svg|15px]] Transwiki to Wikisource. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 01:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How are the interpretations any different to interpretations to books like the Harry Potter thing? Or interpretations given for Shakespeare, etc.?--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 21:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * A brief scan suggests to me, as someone whose never heard of any of these, that the difference between this and books like Harry Potter is context. Its not made reasonably clear what is the proverbs/fable/whatever being used and what is the interpretations being provided. This is probably why others who have commented on it, have said it looks like original research or works of fiction which neither belong here. If your suggesting this is Annotated Text as I suspect you are, than that is not quickly apparent, so either someone should clean it up or ought to be deleted. --dark lama  00:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -But it needs some cleaning up. (Red4tribe (talk) 01:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC))
 * [[Image:Symbol redirect vote.svg|15px]] Transwiki to Wikisource per Mike.lifeguard. The interpretations are mostly lame or silly, but many of the fables are quite good. Some read more as jokes I've read in e-mails, but they are still enjoyable and somewhat educational. If kept, it would need considerable cleanup (like removing the interpretations) and ideally more information about Nasrudin and how the fables came into existence. -- Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 09:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Symbol opinion vote.svg|15px]] FYI: I've removed the interpretations, so this should be ok to move to Wikisource now. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 12:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Which I did the other day. – Mike.lifeguard  &#124; talk 22:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] Keep I doubt Wikisource will keep this. I don't think policy will allow us to keep these without annotation (though, I wouldn't be against modifying the policy to allow folk-tales). I suggest we reinsert the annotations and let this book live.
 * Also, can we refrain from call these lame or silly. Someone thought these were worth their time. I'd encourage everyone to be bold and modify what they consider interesting &mdash; and leave well alone what they don't.
 * Finally, I think it's worth while to note that WB:DP does mention modules in need of heavy editing. It says keep. --Swift (talk) 14:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource transwiki
Does this really belong on Wikisource? I was under the impression that they only took published text. I had a look around at s:Wikisource:What_Wikisource_includes and s:Wikisource:What is Wikisource? but couldn't find anything that explicitly determined this.

Basically, Nasrudin tales are folk tales that will exist in various forms. Some have been published, but can't be attributed to one author nor is there a single authorative version. It might seem that we can only contribute Nasrudin tales from previously published books.

Taking a lean stand, one might say that the stories are somewhat established, have been published (though possibly in a slightly different version, these being folk-tales after all) and not original works of the contributor.

Basically, if the material belongs at Wikisource, I'm fine with deleting. The community, however, leans to keep, so we shouldn't get rid of this until we get Wikisource confirmation that this is acceptable material. --Swift (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've contacted the Wikisource project for their comments. --Swift (talk) 02:27, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * According to s:User:User:BirgitteSB we need "an idenfiable source for the English version with an acceptable copyright status to keep these [at Wikisource]." --Swift (talk) 15:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * }