Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Talk:The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Q&A

Talk:The World of Peer-to-Peer (P2P)/Q&A
Speedy Delete: Unmaintained; Empty; see Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A & Requests for deletion/Chess/Q&A --16:38, 18 May 2010 (UTC)33rogers (talk)


 * Strong Symbol keep vote.svg Keep This is a unnecessary RfD, this page was tagged by 33rogers for speedy, oposed by myself and restored by Adrignola and finally there is a comment by Swift (that raises the issue of usefulness but never states it should be deleted) on the same page (off topic but now restored) and on the undelete request on Adrignola's talk.
 * Given that, the rationals stated above is at least wrong and at worst deceptive (since it doesn't conform to reality). The indicated previous discussion clearly made a distinction on pages on the talk namespace. The page IS maintained and IS considered useful.
 * I've been mostly working on that project alone and I think that any page in the talk namespace if maintained, and has a relation to that project's topic, is beneficial and invokes participation. In any case it should be to the existing book communities to manage that space. A RfD would be only in order if the book was abandoned or the page offensive in any way. --Panic (talk) 18:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep No reason to delete. Even if this page wasn't actively watched, that doesn't devalue it's use. I suggested that it be deleted on the talk page as I personally don't see the value. Book contributors on the other hand do, and that's good enough for me. Not only is there no harm in keeping this, there is no gain in deleting it. --Swift (talk) 00:13, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * There is already consensus from Requests for deletion/Python Programming/Q&A that Wikipedia's Reference desk is the correct place for asking questions. The talk page in question has no useful content and I ask that it be deleted (speedy delete). --33rogers (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such consensus. It may be a better place for a particular purpose but that doesn't mean wikibooks cannot have Q&A pages, which is what you seem to be saying. --Swift (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the only content on the page was:

== Delete, transwiki or move ==

First off, this page hasn't been used in the several years since it was started. It seems to not provide a very useful service and might just as well be deleted. Still, a place for readers to place questions may still be useful but might fit better at Wikiversity. Wikibooks concerns itself with the authoring of quality educational textbooks, while Wikiversity with the actual education. Should this page belong here, it would rather belong in the main namespace. That leaves the talk page to discussing the page &mdash; as this section does. --Swift (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

--33rogers (talk) 04:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep. Mainly because the link to the Q&A from the front page of the book says "If you have questions related to P2P that are not addressed on the book, ask at the Q&A.", clearly stating it was not meant as a general reference desk and hinting at its intended usage as a tool for identifying gaps in the book contents (a reasonable motivation for a Q&A page, as I previously stated in the Python Q&A RfD). Furthermore, the page is on Talk: namespace and is linked to an actively maintained book (so that it can potentially be useful to editors and visitors or even, if necessary, adjusted to better fit project scope). The really important point to be raised on this discussion, however, is that the nuanced arguments for and against deletion in the previous Python Q&A RfD clearly show it would not be adequate to rush all similar cases through speedy deletion. --Duplode (talk) 05:03, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Neutral While the comments above to sound reasonable, I still have doubts about keeping Q&As. While Duplode's comment sounds rational, it sound a bit like word-play to me. If anyone convinces me I might change my mind though. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 10:16, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * and Symbol move vote.svg Move. No particular reason to delete it, and one of the books main contributors would like to keep it. Though as the page is linked from the books main page, it seems more appropriate to me to have the page in the main namespace. Thenub314 (talk) 16:06, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The page is a talk page, it is not part of the book content. (All pages that don't constitute the book content shouldn't be on the project's namespace (see also my post below and if you can reply there, same subject). Why do you feel it the main namespace is the best location? --Panic (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * This isn't just about whether to delete, though (nor even whether to rename, although I'm rather in favor of Thenub314's suggestion to move it to mainspace, since there's a demonstrated need for a separate page on which to discuss the content of the page). Each Q&A page is part of the structure of the book in which it occurs, and rearranging that structure should be done delicately and compassionately with due consideration to the circumstances and community of the individual book; RFD is too blunt an instrument (to say nothing of speedy delete, which doesn't appropriately apply because it is supposed to be limited to utterly uncontroversial cases).  There are two separate functions to be thought through and addressed appropriately:
 * helpdesk, which most of the general Wikibooks community here seem to agree is not appropriate for Wikibooks &mdash; but there seems to be some background level of ambivalence, and some disagreement over whether to farm it out to Wikipedia or to Wikiversity, and it might be more appropriately a decision for the local community of each book rather than for the larger community that deals with RFDs &mdash; and
 * suggestions box, a place to suggest additional coverage that might be appropriate for the particular book &mdash; suggestions that some books might choose to invite their readers to make at a special page dedicated to the purpose; and other books might choose to invite their readers to make at the book's main talk page, or at individual content pages' talk pages; and still other books might not specifically invite at all, but just leave readers to decide on their own initiative to make suggestions on the talk pages.
 * At any rate, it seems to me that general discussion should be at the general reading room rather than here, and specific discussion of individual books should be at those individual book's main talk pages (with links from the Q&A pages in question, presumably) rather than here. --Pi zero (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't agree, the Q&A isn't part of the book, it is a talk page, a discussion area. The need that you feel exists in reality doesn't, for instance Swift post (not Q&A material, and so offtopic on that page) seems to have been forced there, but this is mostly a software limitation, and structurally the main talk page indicates the right place to post such messages.
 * The way we still use talkpages as if we are in Wikipedia is a software limitation and often a habit. This makes it hard to fallow discussions and to be aware of all activities, on the books I've centered my participation I also took steps to unobtrusively center all talks/discussions in a small set of pages and it seems to work better. --Panic (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with the view that this sort of page should be in the main namespace. I see no reason why a module cannot be interactive with content from readers. The talk page is then for the purpose of discussing that page. Either way, it doesn't really matter as it seems to do the job and I don't see anyone complaining.
 * I don't, however, agree with your statement on this so-called "general Wikibooks community". --Swift (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Since this discussion is quickly moving in a more general and constructive direction I followed Pi zero's suggestion and forked it at the reading room (excuse me for the slightly ridiculous length of my post there). --Duplode (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to ignore the fork, but allow me to answer Panic's question here, since it was directed to me and is about this page instead of general considerations. My reasons are two-fold, first it would allow the page to have a discussion page.  This would allow a more appropriate placement of Swift's comments.  Secondly, I do see the page as the part of the content of the book.  Sort of a frequently asked questions, where it is not clear if the questions are frequent.  Granted maybe that wasn't its intention, but that is how I see it. It is my opinion that this is also how readers of the book will view the page in some way.  When developed, many people will read the page not to ask a question, but to read other peoples questions and their answers with the hopes of learning from them. Thenub314 (talk) 09:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
 * (the above post was replied to in the "forked" thread in the reading room so things are kept together)

After some consideration, I !vote keep, but not rename. Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)