Wikibooks:Requests for undeletion/Naturism

Naturism

It was first deleted by Uncle G and now undeleted by Guanaco who complained there was "no consensus". All right then, let's make a vote. I suggest speedy deletion, this is a soapbox and does not serve any educational purpose (Is "where to practise naturism" practical? For most of us, not). --Derbeth ^talk 22:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was the admin that delted this Wikibook. Here are my reasons:

1. Until User:Guanaco undeleted this Wikibook, there was absolutely no opposition to removing this, and the speedy delete tag has been on there for several days.
2. User:Jimbo_Wales, whose opinion counts a whole lot more than just about anybody else here, was the one who put the speedy delete tag on here in the first place. I figured that he was going to delete this anyway, so why wait for the inevitable.
3. Of the three Wikibooks that were announced by Jimbo as being against Wikibooks policy, this was the most recently created and the smallest of the bunch.
4. This Wikibook violated WB:WIN policy from even before the changes that Jimbo added, and by that criteria this Wikibook was subject to a speedy delete status, particularly because it is a political soapbox, and has content that could be also considered illegal in some English speaking countries (particularly the child-pornography, from some interpretations).

If the point is that if there needs to be a fair hearing about undeleting this Wikibook, please put that discussion in Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion and state your case there. If this gets into a deletion edit war, I will personally start a campaign for de-adminship and get the Stewards involved in this issue. This book will stay deleted until there is clear community concensus that it should be here. I did state in the logs that the reason for deletion was because of the fiat decision by Jimbo, because it is. I know that is not a neutral point of view position, but until you become the CEO of the Wikimedia Foundation you don't have the position to question that opinion. If you want Jimbo to change his mind, take it up with him and get him to reverse his position as stated on Staff Lounge.

I'll be the first to admit that Jimbo should have made these all VfD discussions instead, but he didn't. Keep this Wikibook off of this project. --Rob Horning 00:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1. Wikibooks is a relatively small project. Very few people frequently check the deletion-related pages.
2. Jimbo Wales is not an unquestionable GodKing, nor is he trying to be. My opinion counts as much as his in this matter. This is not an Entmoots of Trolls banning decision or a Wikimedia board vote.
3. That's irrelevant. Junk pages can sit unnoticed for months, and excellent material can appear in a matter of days.
4. This book is not pure soapbox material. The child pornography issue applies only to the images, not the text.
5. Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion is for pages that originally were deleted through some sort of process, such as this VfD page. If there is a case to be made, you can make it here in this section of this page. (skipping over petty threats) Jimbo did not make a fiat decision, but if he did, it should be challenged. I will question any opinion whenever questions are due. Guanaco 07:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimbo did not make these VfD discussions, but we can. Let the Wikibooks community at large decide whether to keep this Wikibook off of this project. Guanaco 07:53, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The simple solution to this is to leave this book undeleted and treat it as a standard VfD listing. Jimbo has stated that he is not issuing any orders and that his recent edits are based on his interpretation of current policy. He is not trying to override or bypass consensus. Guanaco 07:25, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• Send to Wikibooks:Pages needing attention. This is somewhat soapboxish, but it contains valid book information that could easily be refactored. The images should be judged individually if there is a child pornography issue. Guanaco 07:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can you point out what practical information this book offers? It's just a manifesto "hey people, practise naturism!", nothing more. We do not need such books. --Derbeth ^talk 08:10, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I have no idea how you can overcome Jimbo's objection here in particular. Blatantly fighting against Jimbo on this issue is going to be major heartburn all along, unless we are willing to unite completely as a project and be willing to even fork all of Wikibooks elsewhere outside of the Wikimedia Foundation umbrella. As far as issuing orders here, he did so by coming onto the Staff Lounge and doing what he did, especially making blatant policy changes on WB:WIN without community concensus in the manner that he did and making himself an admin here on Wikibooks. He did bypass concensus and has not made clear why he did what he did, dispite many attempts to ask him to clarify what his actions were all about. I posted information about this action on Foundation-l, and the "regulars" there are very surprisingly absent from the discussion, except a few saying "wow, that is a huge policy change, isn't it." Is Jimbo going to really let us get community concensus here, including reverting his change on WB:WIN if we want to? --Rob Horning 13:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Whatever other issues there are concerning Jimbo's fiat, Naturism is not to place to fight it. Where can naturism be practiced? At home, at clothing optional beaches, at nudist clubs. Is there anyone so cut off from the real world as not to know that? As Virginia Woolf once said in another context, "There is no there there." Fight Jimbo (or not) over computer game manuals, but not over Naturism. --JMRyan 18:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
      • On the positive side, if we are squabbling over the deletion of Naturism, it should be patently obvious that things like Jokebook should be kept as well. This whole thing was not handled in the best way possible. Like I've been trying to say here, I deleted this book because I thought there was no opposition to it. If there is a sold argument to keep this Wikibook, I'll consider it and support its undeletion. I just didn't like having my action second-guessed for no apparent reason, and none given either on the votes for Undeletion page or even on the talk page, other than it should have been up for a VfD first. IMHO that is not sufficient. Had User:Guanaco added that argument first or complained about my deletion here with rational reasons before getting into an edit war with me over this, I would have been quite a bit more cooperative to get it undeleted. Generally I'm an inclusionist, but there are some unique issues with this Wikibook. --Rob Horning 19:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

• No idea If its about the variation in the community, I'd say keep or transwiki to wikipedia.. and definitely keep if its too big to enhance wikipedia's articles on the subject. OTOH, If its just a list of places, yes delete would be fine, or transwiki to wikicities, or even transwiki to a subpage of a wikipedia article.

• Keep Deleted. This was not a textbook, and never will be. Also it violates the soapbox clause, and was pretty close to violating the NPOV clause as well. Plus, Jimbo hates it. In addition, this book served no possible educational interest, brought no benefit to either individual readers or the wikibooks community as a whole, and was frankly an excuse to show nudity on wikimedia servers (which violates the "wikibooks is not a webhost" clause as well). If this was a paper book, I would light it on fire. --Whiteknight _TC^E 19:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

• View text. I had believed that the main purpose of Naturism was to show photos of nudity. But since User:Guanaco has suggested that the entire book was deleted only because of its images, I would like to view the text (not the images) again. --Kernigh 21:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

  If there is even one other user that wants to see the text besides admins (Admins can see the deleted text without undeletion), I would be willing to do a temporary undeletion. Like I said, very temporary, but with the understanding that without strong concensus to keep it will be deleted again. --Rob Horning 22:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted. I hadn't actually voted when I made an earlier comment about Naturism and I suppose some actual votes are needed. Note. At Wikibooks talk:Policy/Vote, there is a lot of consternation about vagueness and ambiguity in some proposed changes in Wikibooks. I'm afraid there will, of necessity, be ambiguity and vagueness whatever policy is adopted. At some point, you have to rely on the most vague coda of all: When all else fails, use common sense. Naturism was just silly, the Wikipedia article Nudism is much better, and the topic is much more appropriate for a Wikipedia article than a booklike treatment. PS. IIRC, the only specific nudism/naturism venue mentioned in the book was der Englische Garten—I suspect that even Pope Benedict knows about that one.
  • Yes, ongoing inferiority to a wikipedia article should be grounds for deletion.  :) Comon sence and quality shold ultimately trump other concerns. - 81.97.155.10 10:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Common sense? In this context, that means consensus, no? Then our policy is common sense. In fact, WB:WIW says that Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia, so I would delete modules that were inferior to Wikipedia articles. The only exception is more modules that are expanded into books that are not inferior to Wikipedia articles. --Kernigh 15:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
• keep deleted - no educational value --Derbeth ^talk 00:21, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Textbook Rule. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 15:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Obvious WB:WIN issues. Trödel 18:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment Concensus is to keep this one deleted, and (if i am counting correctly), there aren't actually any votes at all to bring this one back. This book will stay deleted. I will archive this discussion in 1 week. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 13:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)