Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Transwiki:Building Watching

Transwiki:Building Watching
It may well be me but I guess I view this as something less than serious all in all. It has been around and not found a home for 6 months now. Looking through my local bookshop would suggest either a market for this kind of textbook or more likely a complete absence of demand! -- Herby talk thyme 13:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this survived a previous VfD with the comment Keep on the condition that it can be merged, because it can't stand on it's own. If for no other reason I believe this should be delete -- Herby  talk thyme 14:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as it has obviously not been merged and is quite bad and probably should have been deleted at WP instead of transwikied here based upon quality. Kellen T 14:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't appear to be a useful book in its present form. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Poland_2.svg|15px]]talk 15:01, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is no timeframe for moving a page out of the transwiki space. Also, whether you find this book to be "serious" or not is irrelevant: the subject of art appreciation (and by extension, "architectural appreciation") is a subject of academic study and amateur hobbyism. A quick move to Building Watching should be sufficient to quell most of the criticisms here so far. Once it is in it's new home, it will be a stub, but stubs are acceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:54, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the comment I quoted was your's Whiteknight! -- Herby talk thyme 20:51, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I knew that comment looked familiar! I've commented on so many VfDs in my time, it's hard for me to remember what all I've said, and what opinions I've had about all pages. In fact, as a fun historical note, one of the reasons why i was voted in as an admin originally was because of my activity on this very page. Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending) my opinions tend to evolve over time, and I am not always likely to vote the same way on the same page under the same circumstances. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - the topic is perhaps not so silly, in light of this book and it's accompanying TV doco. Sure, it's pretty light-on at present, but perhaps some architecture types could build upon it (no pun intended!) Webaware 23:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep --Panic 23:59, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge with a wikibook on tourism. The current version is mostly incomprehensible, and doesn't say anything. PCU123456789 (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've had a change of heart, and looking at this page again (for the millionth time, it seems), it is hard for me to find much that is worth keeping, or much that would be a benefit to a future book on this subject. When dealing with stubs and proto-books, it is difficult to determine what should be kept, and what should not be. Even erring on the side of caution, this page has been far too useless for far too long. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC)