Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Isle of Arran

Isle of Arran

The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
Looks like a Closed as Keep to me. However I intend to remove the "tranwiki" tag as I see this as discouraging contributions to this book --Herby talk thyme 16:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[]


I don't think there is any doubt in my mind that this should be deleted but there is quite a bit of content. If you look at the history this is better served already by Wikitravel, however (in my view) the content is too great to be speedy'd. Delete neutral is my vote --Herby talk thyme 14:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]

  • I originally tagged it because the book had been superseded by [1]. I won't vote yet, but I'm inclined to delete it given this case. --Iamunknown 16:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Delete. It's a great book and the differences between geography and travel are quite slim but people are unlikely to look on Wikibooks for a travel guide given that Wikitravel have a huge range of travel articles. And it should probably be deleted now that Wikitravel has a good guide to the island and because no edits have been made for some time. Xania 19:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Keep. To be fair (and terribly honest), I dont think many people are going to look on wikibooks for anything. Of course, this isnt due to anything except our own lack of public noteriety (or perhaps that recognition of our project is eclipsed by the public recognition of wikipedia). The word "textbook", poorly defined as it is, could certainly allow for a small book about an obscure part of scotland. The book may not be a blockbuster, but i don't think that's grounds for deletion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I have a feeling i originally wrote this book before i found wikitravel, and after i transferred most of the contents to wikitravel forgot about it. I always thought wikibooks would be a nice place to store travel guides to places - a snap shot of an area with a history included, but i imagine this discussion has been engaged and lost a long time ago. As I was a little too close to this page i'm going to sit this vote out. Pluke 23:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
If we delete this, what shall we do with the London 'travel guide' --London-- ?Pluke 18:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[]
I do agree - changing vote to neutral! --Herby talk thyme 18:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[]
Previous discussion about london - [2] Pluke 18:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I only voted Delete because I thought that travel guides weren't allowed on Wikibooks. Personally I think that Wikibooks is the ideal places for such guides (although that would therefore compete with Wikitravel). Xania 23:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • Keep - I don't know where this rush to push content to other Wiki projects comes from, but I would have to agree almost completely with the comment by Whiteknight above. This book does not violate any of the established policies of Wikibooks. The only grounds I can see to remove this book is if the original author has made a request for its deletion and there are not other substantial contributors. If this is done better on Wikitravel, I'm glad that project is doing so well. That still doesn't require that we move any similar books to that or any other project, particularly because it isn't a Wikimedia project. --Rob Horning 20:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[]
  • I'm confused about whether or not I wish to support or object the deletion. I dislike what has happened here at Wikibooks in the past, specifically the repeated forking of content to strategywiki, to wikiversity, and now it seems like at wikipedia. (More on that at another time, if you wish.) As the criteria for inclusion is stated now, free-content textbooks, I really disagree with retaining this book. But the things, almost anything can be used as a textbook, especially in college classrooms. And I think the being created only if there exists a class given at an accredited university and designed and capable of being used therein metric espoused by Jimbo on the wikibooks-l mailing list is hogwash. It is so incredibly subjective and difficult to define as to render it nearly useless in discussing wikibook textbooks, except to point out its glaring subjectivity. Like I said, delete seems at first glance the only acceptable way of dealing with this, as it is not really a textbook. But since a textbook is a book used for learning in a classroom, it certainly could qualify as a textbook. Therefore it would be keep. Sigh. I don't know. Cheers, Iamunknown 17:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[]
It's not hard for me to imagine a class in a local Scotland college that teaches about the local economy, or the local society, etc. For instance, as a Philadelphia native, I can tell you that philadelphia area colleges teach classes on philadelphia area subjects: local economy, local history, local geography, local immigration patterns, etc. This book follows in a similar vein, and I can't imagine why we would vote to delete it, except, perhaps, on grounds that this particular Island is not notable (at least not to many of the non-scotish wikibookians who have commented above). However, to the best of my knowledge, wikibooks doesnt have any notability criteria (unless we borrow from WP). Like Rob pointed out above, before the current wave of admins came in, it generally was policy to keep WMF projects self-contained in the sense that material could be freely transwikied between WMF projects, but it was not acceptable to transwiki material out of WMF projects, especially if the target location was not GFDL-based. In light of the strategy-wiki moves, I think we need to reconsider this. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[]
I am beginning to resent this inclusion metric. I know it was (I think?) suggested by Jimbo on the mailing list, and I think it has little merit. Not that I disagree with your conception of a class at a local Scotland college; I do, and am now more inclined to keep. What I dislike, however, is that has been used in the past (from what archives I have read through) as a defense for many books, but an attack upon other books. And of course, it seems the ones that were attacked most were the game guides, jokebook, et. al. I disagree with this improper, inappropriate and unfair use. It is a double standard. On the one hand, it is used for as a defense for non-game guide wikibooks which are inhernetly slightly more innocuous than game guides; on the other hand, it has been used as an attack on game-guides. The metric must either require proof for or against it, and one cannot require proof for it to qualify for inclusion in some cases and then require proof against it to qualify for deletion in other cases. --Iamunknown 18:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[]


The following discussion has concluded. Please open a new discussion for any further comments.
deleted QU TalkQu 15:38, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[]


This small book was created in 2005 and since then little work has been done. Much of the information is either out-of-date, poorly-written or lacks detail. At least one page has been tagged as work needed for quite some time. In addition it's a travel book which never was a Wikibooks thing although we often looked the other way as there were no non-commercial alternatives. Now, however, there is Wikivoyage so this book should either be deleted or transfered to Wikivoyage (can we transwiki to WV yet?).--ЗAНИA talk 22:08, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[]

Delete Wikivoyage already has a much more complete page on the Isle of Arran (voy:Isle of Arran) Liam987 01:25, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[]
Delete I wrote this originally, Wikivoyage has now taken over Pluke (discuss • contribs) 09:20, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[]
  • Comment I can't see Pluke in the history. However, I do not oppose deletion.--Abramsky (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[]
This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.