Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikijunior:Children's TV Lexicon

Wikijunior:Children's TV Lexicon
Book has serious POV issues and is not written for children. It also has tons of link spam. It is a translation of a book that was deleted from German Wikijunior after rfd. It also says things that are just flat out untrue. For example it says that "metal" is a "metaphor for an exaggerated opinion of oneself ("me tall")." Best case, this is original research. xixtas talk 03:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * See A Pharaoh to Remember: The pharaoh is made of metal (and is quite tall). Are you accusing the authors of original research? --Fasten (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that language differences may be a barrier to understanding here. I'm saying that in America, metal is most often metaphorically associated with strength and birds are most frequently associated metaphorically with the concept of freedom, not "a person who flies". I'm pretty sure that "Me Tall" juxtaposed to "metal" in English would be considered a pun, rather than a metaphor. The concept of metaphor in English seems to me to be rather narrower than you are suggesting in the text. If you can find something that explicitly says metal is a metaphor for an enhanced sense of worth then feel free to cite it. Until then, I'm going to continue to believe it's something you just made up and therefore original research. The article you have cited above does not even contain the _word_ metal. -- xixtas  talk 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that knights are a good example for the metaphor in a more realistic context that is also present in TV series for children. --Fasten (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to go back and forth with you. But you arguing this point doesn't give me any confidence that you are able to recognize and correct the serious problems with this book. -- xixtas  talk 01:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In a philosophycracy you would know have to explain your position. Your work on Wikijunior is for your sons and you are a computer networking and security consultant? You propose to delete Wikijunior:Children's TV Lexicon/tree? (If you can read German you might also want to read Philosophiekratie ). --Fasten (talk) 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikijunior is not a philosophcracy, and I have explained my position. -- xixtas  talk 14:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And because Wikijunior is not a philosophcracy you can make insufficient and inconsistent votes that fail to address the relevant issues and instead give vague information about your level of confidence? Following the language of the children's TV lexicon I would have to sign that as "tree" (but then this isn't a comic either). --Fasten (talk) 15:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * WB:NPA -- xixtas  talk 04:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I change my name in a signature that falls under WB:NPA? Could you explain that? The answer could be useful as a chapter for the Children's TV Lexicon. --Fasten (talk) 11:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Xixtas has stated a position; stop harassing them. Additionally, arguing for or against the deletion of this work should not require linking to sister projects.  All our policies are conveniently located here. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to point xixtas to a concept that has greater importance than this deletion discussion; I was not trying to make it a policy. --Fasten (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Have to agree with xixtas... plus it looks encyclopedic, I don't see how it can be made into a book, frankly. Chazz (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Agree with all of the above. Not salvageable.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete Parts of it make no sense at all, particularly the metaphors section. Whether that is from the original or the translation is anyone's guess.  Seems to be oriented towards the philosophical but at best appears to be an essay. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment For general perspective (keeping clearly in mind that their WJ isn't our WJ, and vice versa): the German Wikijunior rfd.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol comment vote.svg Keep The book is more educational than some of the content used in schools. While the wording of "Exercises" was too difficult for the age range the metaphors themselves clearly were not. --Fasten (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete "The book is more educational than some of the content used in schools." doesn't advance your point (it depends on the books and schools or even countries). Quality it seems is not the only reason people are promoting the deletion. I think some effort was done on writing it but part of it doesn't make sense at all. In general I don't see it as recoverable, useful or falling in the definitions of a Wikijunior project. --Panic (talk) 12:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol question.svg I'm not sure you are allowed to delete dogmatic religion? --Fasten (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * English Wikibooks and German Wikibooks are separate projects, with their own ways of doing things. I don't pretend to understand the nuances of German Wikibooks policies, but here, at least, we delete books that violate WB:NPOV if we decide the violation is inherent in the book (so it can't just be fixed), regardless of what the subject of the book is.  (I get a very uncomfortable feeling about this use of the phrase dogmatic religion, because I suspect it may be the result of a translation in which a rich set of cultural associations is lost, and another whole different set of cultural associations is added, so that the outcome of the translation may be deeply misleading about what was originally meant.)


 * By the way, the icons are a convenient way of seeing, at a glance, how many people in a discussion are taking which position; please don't use more than one keep (or delete) in a single discussion. (A subsequent remark might be tagged as a comment or, in this case, a question.)  --Pi zero (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think the whole book probably suffers from language barriers. I suspect the work doesn't translate vary well. From what I have been told before some jokes, puns, and metaphors don't translate at all. Maybe the work just needs a better translation, or maybe this work simply cannot make sense in the English language. --dark lama  01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete I can't see what educational value this book has. --Swift (talk) 14:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Please specify your exact problem with Wikijunior:Children's TV Lexicon/tree. --Fasten (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The problem with that section of that module is pretty much the same as with the whole book: It builds an argument on questionable analogies ("always want to watch faraway scenes")" and nonsensical arguments ("which is why they become so large") to arrive at somewhat reasonable, but logically fallacious conclusions ("you have to think before you do something"). It's unverifiable original research.
 * What exactly do you think makes it fall under the scope of this project? --Swift (talk) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "The use of literary elements, such as allegory or fables as instructional tools can be permitted in some situations." --Fasten (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you think I'm arguing against all analogies, you're missing the point. --Swift (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The "educational value of the book" was your concern. The language Pi invites children to learn a secret language, which is very motivating for children. The language Pi allows young children to use a word like tree to avoid an insult and motivate another child to investigate the meaning of the word, which is educational . The insults young children otherwise may use for each other are neither funny, nor educational and have the potential to cause quarrel, so the simple use of "tree" as an insult turns 3 negative aspects into positive aspects (including the educational aspect). --Fasten (talk) 18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete, if for no other reason that I can't even work out what it is supposed to be about, making it a struggle to see how a child would have a clue. It's clearly made up original research. Maybe as others have said there is some kind of cultural or translation problem here - if so, it's a massive problem. Can't be saved. QU TalkQu 23:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In that case you probably should delete Pilingual Primer as well. --Fasten (talk) 11:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't Commons and we have entirely independent policies from them. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol comment vote.svg Comment I feel the lines of argument that User:Fasten is pursuing are taking this discussion off track. The book can be kept if it is demonstrated how it falls within the project scope and complies with policies. Until I see an argument for including this or a decent criticism of the arguments against (and that means understanding the intent of the arguments rather than nit-pick) I will abstain from this discussion. For those interested, my logic professor recommended this book to me a few years back. --Swift (talk) 14:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will not be participating in this discussion any more. I will go along with whatever the community decides. -- xixtas  talk 16:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)