Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikijunior:Coloring Book (2)

Wikijunior:Coloring Book
I personally don't like this book. It is filled with nothing but four pictures. The first one is a funny-looking copyleft picture. The second one is a strange public domain pirate. The third one is a really odd mad scientist picture - looks like a copyvio of Dr Twobrains of WordGirl, in fact. The last one is the Wikipe-tan which I personally dislike and is not that suitable for Wikijunior. There is no target scope defined. Also, as a reference for everyone the previous nomination is at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Wikijunior:Coloring Book, which I unfortunately was unable to participate in as I was at Wikipedia at the time. Also, as a 'reply' to Swift's comment in that discussion, I don't think colouring is anything but a preschool activity, which is intended to be fun for kids rather than educational. Unlike maths problems (I think (s)he is referring to the Mathematics Worksheets wikibook, whose exact name I've forgotten). Kayau ( talk &#124; email &#124; contribs ) 11:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete. My position remains the same as before; see the previous discussion for details, but it boils down to this not being textbook material. What does it teach?  The answer: nothing.  Why don't we make a book with crossword puzzles or a book with Sudoku puzzles?  That's not what Wikibooks is and I don't support this book, unchanged since a single creation edit in May 2007, being kept. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep nothing has changed since the last discussion in 3 March 2010. It seems to me that rehashing the discussion to be premature at this time, with all considerations to Kayau and Adrignola opinions. It was established that the work was inside the parameters of acceptable content (textbook is not a requirement of Wikijunior). Taste even if an acceptable argument will always have a low impact on the outcome of RfDs (consider what could happen otherwise) and regarding the educational value of this type of books it has also been addressed in the previous discussion.
 * In any case since all images are now on commons, so no content will be lost, if we get a participation on this discussion of a similar size of the previous one, if I'm blocking, I'll change my vote. --Panic (talk) 12:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep I agree that nothing has changed since last time. Wikijunior does not require that books be textbooks, or in fact require books to be educational. Wikijunior books are only required to be fun for kids, which this book is for the right age group. I could also urge that for the right age group this book is educational because kids learn to color and to use their imagination. --dark lama  13:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikijunior is for educational material, period. The original grant on which it was established was for education, and What is Wikijunior still makes it IMO quite clear that the purpose of Wikijunior is educational.  A non-educational project would be something completely different from the current project.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Non-binding Symbol keep vote.svg Keep - There are two separate issues to consider here. The first one is that pre-school activities like colouring are educational. Otherwise why would teachers have the kids doing them? From my non-specialist point of view, I would go as far as saying that teaching colours and having the children exercise their creativity are just as important goals as, say, introducing them to maths. The "not a textbook" argument does not apply either - not standing as a standalone reading material for kids is not a problem; after all, pretty much any educational material for small kids will be meant to be used with supervision of teachers/parents/etc. That being said, I agree that this book qualifies as an undeveloped stub, given that it has just pictures without elaborating any useful context for kids or educators (and the pictures don't look that great for their intended purpose, either). For that reason, I state my vote as weak/non-binding, in the same spirit of Panic's. An alternative possibility to a keep/delete outcome would be a merge to some book in the vein of Wikijunior:Colors, maybe as a page discretely linked from the For Parents page as an "additional resource". --Duplode (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Symbol keep vote.svg Keep Reason for nomination last time was that this book is not educational, and the general sense seemed to be that coloring books are somewhat educational, some more than others, and this one needs improvement.  This seemed reasonable to me, as nominator that time around.  No book should be subjected to frequent RFDs for a non-urgent reason (for one thing it's apt to generate a certain level of background sympathy for the book), but especially not when the prospect of eventual improvement was woven into the arguments for keeping it.  It wouldn't be taken amiss if, at very long intervals (think, four or six months), one were to ping the community at the projects reading room about the need to improve this book.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:36, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Tanks for putting it into words. I would support an addition to the deletion policy to protect books being repeatedly nominated for RfD. Not only is the reasons you state above valid, but it also unbalances the RfD process. Considering that after a deletion it is required to open a undeletion process and a Keep can be simply restarted. Some time protection could work, but consider the work under discussion, no change was made to the work or project rules, the statement made in the first discussion remain valid (probably making the arguments on past discussion count to the renewed process would work). I think putting some stronger words on the policy so to avoid rehashing would suffice, since this discussion outcome would probably be expected by a more experienced Wikibookian. As the active majority, extra care is needed to avoid creating unbalances and inconsistencies as they will always be unfair and disruptive. --Panic (talk) 23:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)