Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Knowledge Which No One Can Have

The Knowledge Which No One Can Have
Nonsense and/or original research. At best, this is better suited to Wikiversity, where nonsense can be pursued with vigor. &mdash; mikelifeguard@enwikibooks:&#126;$ 11:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it is nonsense than Wikiversity wouldn't be a good place for it either. --dark lama  13:43, 30 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If it is nonsense then describe WHY it should be deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.44.27.130 (talk • contribs).


 * There are many ways one could explain this. If it is nonsense it is not a textbook, so doesn't belong at Wikibooks as per WB:WIW.  Particularly, I would say if your putting nonsense here your using Wikibooks as a host, and this book seems to be engaging in original research. Both of which violate our criteria for inclusion.
 * One perhaps annoying thing is that it seems difficult on occasion to distinguish between nonsense and philosophy. This could possibly have been meant as an introductory philosophy text; however, it is not written in a manner that would allow it to be used as such a text. Significant rewrite might make it useful; however, "the knowledge which no one can have" is but one concept, which I would expect to be covered in about a week in an intro philosophy course. If this was one chapter in a larger text, I'd say it could be forced into shape, with much work; however, it does not stand alone. Additionally, I have to go with the overall feel here; I don't remember "connectivity" and "disturbability" concepts from my Phil101 course, and would have to believe this to be OR. Chazz (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I think this is definitely OR and should go. Not to mention reading it makes my brain hurt :(. Thenub314 (talk) 14:04, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Not only is this OR, but it's also nonsensical OR. --Jomegat (talk) 14:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete As fascinating as contemplating the "connectivity" and "disturbability" of the tomato or potato may be, I doubt the book is based on anything factual, and lacking any citations to verify that, I agree that this is original research. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:42, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. I can but quote myself from when I originally queried this: "Well, looks like complete nonsense to me I'm afraid, but let's wait and see if it develops beyond a repeated set of questions. You should be aware that while "collaborative authoring" is indeed the purpose of the Wikimedia sites, this one does not allow original research. This book looks like exactly that. Again, let's see how it goes but if it is OR it stands to be deleted in the future". Nothing has changed. QU TalkQu 20:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly violateing OR guidelines.  Kayau  David Copperfield  MOBY DICK   the great gatsby  13:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * as per my comment above; it feels like OR to me. Chazz (talk) 08:02, 4 May 2010 (UTC)