Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Water Resources Directory

Water Resources Directory
Directories are neither textbooks nor manuals, but would they still be acceptable for Wikibooks? I would like to hear the views of others on whether we should include directories or not. --hagindaz 03:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. After looking through this book, I am of the opinion that it is really more then just a simple directory. However, the large numbers of red links do cause a bit of an eyesore, if not a bigger problem. I am inclined to keep this, to see what it becomes, although I do admit that after spending a good amount of time editing and categorizing this book, I may be a little biased. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm curious why you think it's more than a simple directory. It seems to me to be a collection of external links. I haven't seen a single prose paragraph. By the way, the number of red links shouldn't be an issue, in my opinion. Thanks in advance for taking the time to respond, hagindaz 15:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it may currently be simply a list of red links, but there is still at least one active contributor (and therefore it is not an orphan), and that contributor has expressed a strong desire to extend this book beyond it's current state (therefore it is not stuck eternally in it's current condition). We are not in the habit of deleting every single page that isn't currently a book, because we should recognize that fully-formed books do not spring up over night. Every book has a period of infancy, and we shouldnt delete a new or infantile book just because in their current state they arent perfect. The primary contributor, User:KHatcher, created the book to be a basic skeleton, so that other contributors (and herself, presumably) will be able to expand on it without having to worry about pesky structural details later. The current lack of prose paragraphs does not presuppose the intended goal of eventually adding them. If this book is abandoned in the future, or if it never progresses beyond it's current state, I may be in favor of deletion. But, it's a big project, and it's still too early in the lifecycle to declare it unacceptable. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is any of that relevant? It can have hundreds of red links, or it can be 100% complete. It can be an orphan or it can have a dozen active contributors. The jokebook was fairly active, I believe, yet that was deemed outside Wikibooks' scope. If we deem directories outside Wikibooks' scope, the book should of course be moved to a more suitable location. No one is for deleting content. I respect the decisions and opinions of everyone with valid reasons, regardless of what those opinions are. I would respect your decision if you feel we should keep this book if you weren't making it based on irrelevant information. --hagindaz 15:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I hardly see it as being irrelevant information, although perhaps I am not presenting it clearly. My point is that the book may be simply a listing right now, but that there are intentions to make it more then that in the future. It is currently a skeleton, but it will become a text with ample prose in the future. If this book had no active contributors, and was doomed to stay in the sorry state that it is in now, I would certainly vote to delete. However, this book does have an active contributor, and concrete plans to make it an acceptable text. Books of this size, however, require a certain amount of time to move from the category of "unacceptable skeleton" to "Acceptable text". I am simply in favor of allowing that time, so that this may become an acceptable text. Again, if we need to take the word "Directory" out of the title to clear away misgivings, then I will certainly do that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Whiteknight, a textbook on the subject of law would not be comprised of a list of all laws by country. Yet replace "laws" with "water resources" and that is precisely what the author is trying to accomplish, by my understanding. Does that fall within the scope of this project, in your opinion? --hagindaz 22:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've talked with the primary contributor, User:KHatcher, about this. She's currently laying out the general scheme of the book, with the intention of attracting professionals on the subject to come contribute to it. I think that this could become a very high-profile project for wikibooks, especially if we are attracting educated and knowledgable professionals in the field to come and contribute to it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, but possibly rename it and rewrite sections - AmishThrasher 03:48, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The book (directory) covers and organizes the entire field of water resources including science, engineering, economics and management (the latter being both technical and social science/political), with both old and new information (current events, ongoing case studies).  It is presently mostly an outline for organizing this large body of material, so there are many red links to the blank template pages.  My intention is to contact professionals (even professional associations) in each area to invite them to contribute material for their areas of expertise. -- KHatcher 13:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think many of you are discussing the wrong issues. The ammount of contributors and state of the project is irrelevant. Wikipedia deletes both large articles and stubs every day. The jokebook was a high profile project, yet we deleted that. The issue is whether we should allow directories. I think there is agreement that this book is a directory, not a textbook or manual. If this book is allowed, we must allow telephone directories, and change WB:WIW and our subtitle on sister projects to "textbooks, manuals, and directories." Thanks for listening, hagindaz 15:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Likewise, I think the issue of it being considered a directory is based on the misfortunate fact that the word "Directory" is in the title, and in it's current early state, it doesn't have much substance to it. There is a plan to increase the substance of the book, and I can change the name, if you would like. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it is not a directory, but is in fact a textbook, then there would obviously not be any problems with keeping it. I apologize for hastily calling it a directory, but I made that call based on the current "chapters" of the book. Please briefly explain why it is not a listing/directory and I'll vote to keep it and we'll end this issue. :) --hagindaz 16:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not calling it a directory because it is too infantile and incomplete to be anything yet, except a basic organizational structure with some resources and footnotes. I think (or believe very strongly) that these pages will become an acceptable text if given enough time. Of course, I could be wrong, and this could follow a downward spiral to becoming simply a listing of facts, external links, and citations. If that is all it amounts to--once it has had time to amount to anything--then I will be in favor of deletion myself. Also, it is worth noting that Civil and Environmental Engineering, as well as Ecology and other scientific courses of study will use resources on this subject. The fact that it could be used in the classroom, along with the eventual (assumed) addition of sufficient prose, make this a textbook to me. Again, that word is terribly defined here, so take it as you will. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Does the author intend the page Water Resources Directory/Education to become an article on water resources education? That's perfectly fine, and in that case, I'll of course support keeping it and the book should be renamed "Water Resources" to clarify. But the page states, "This page links to sections which describe educational goals, model curricula, best teaching examples and programs for the major specialties within the water resources profession," which seems to indicate that it is intended to be only a listing. Nearly every page in the book states that it is designed to be a listing. But again, if the author intends the page to be an article on water resources education, that's perfectly acceptable. --hagindaz 16:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I suppose only time will tell on the matter. I was lead to believe this will become an acceptable text. I've been wrong in the past, however. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: The good Wikibooks spirit is "Think Free. Learn Free." Perhaps "Think Big" should also be included, since Wikibooks has such tremendous potential.  It is a mistake to limit thinking and learning to just standard textbooks.  Good teachers don't limit their classes in that way.  My intention is to provide the information that water resources professionals and citizens need in an organized useful way, basically a directory or guide to the large interdisciplinary field.  Some of that information is best presented in article format, some in list format, some in other formats like annotated bibliography.  For example, it is useful to know the list of agencies which have programs in a certain subfield (like drinking water supply) or to have a list of laws which apply.  An article about each law is even better, but the list by itself is still useful. Water resources management is an important topic worldwide, affecting everyone, and is becoming more crucial every day.  The directory outlines a large effort to help professionals and regular citizens learn and obtain the information they need to understand this field and to improve their regions.  What good will come of blocking this effort?   This large directory will require the input of many water resources professionals, which I can contact, but not before some assurance that this work will not be deleted.   -- KHatcher 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course thinking and learning should not be limited. But several books aiding learning are expressively forbidden from Wikibooks, such as encylopedias, collections of quotations, and original texts. The question, and I ask that you please focus on the actual issue, is whether reference works and directories should be included here, on this project. No one is advocating deleting content. Let's decide if your work fits Wikibooks' purpose and focus, and if it doesn't, then lets move it to a more appropriate location. Does that sound like a sensible idea to you, KHatcher? --hagindaz 21:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Wikibook's purpose and focus is educational material: "Think Free. Learn Free." I think that the logo "open contents textbook collection" was a shorthand way of characterising educational material, and was not intended to have a narrow interpretation.  For a narrow interpretation, the site should have been called Wikitexts.org to avoid shutting out good educational material on Wikibooks.org.  The three examples you correctly listed are not included on Wikibooks to avoid duplication (rather than shutting out) -- encyclopedia articles go on Wikipedia.org, collections of quotes go on Wikiquotes.org, and original texts go on Wikisource.org if copyright allows it.  I think that Water Resources Directory fits the Wikibooks spirit regarding educational material, the information is important and needed by many people, and shutting it out serves no good purpose.  -- KHatcher 20:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Discussion closed. The decision was Keep, Jguk 06:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)