|
Original author never really layed out a point for the book. Others have cleaned up the stuff he created a bit, but the book seems to have no point. I discussed the lack of direction in detail on the talk page and have gotten no response. The author seems to have left for other ambitions. Either way, if a book on arts management needs to be created, then let it be created. But this definitely isn't it; this book is an aimless few paragraphs that I think should be scrapped. -Monktalk 07:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - Quite old, going nowhere. -withinfocus 01:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree. The book is poorly defined, doesnt have any substantial content, and it is highly unlikely that people looking for a book on this subject are going to search for the term "21am". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The book has two serious problems:
- the front page has wording that could scare away talented people -- "If you're a boring arts manager with a degree, don't spoil the party." -- and
- the name 21am is confusing.
- These are both easily fixed. That said, there's hardly anything here. I'm no fan of this book, and I wonder whether deleting it might make it more likely that we would get a much better arts management book in the future. But this would survive a VFD no problem if not for its silly diatribe at the top. --Brian Brondel 20:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - wrong name, POV, bugger all content, inflamatory to target readership. Webaware talk 01:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Brian Brondel's changes address my main concerns (had previously voted based on what I saw earlier, not his recent changes). Let's hope someone now addresses the lack of content. Webaware talk 02:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Aside from the introduction, I don't understand why the community has so much distaste for this particular book. I fixed the problems I mentioned earlier to illustrate the point. Why must this book go, but not, for example, Voter's Guide:Australia? Brian Brondel 02:00, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
While I don't think that the existence of one book can be used to justify or refute reasons for another book's existence, I too am unsure whether or not this book should be deleted. We have to ask ourselves: are we doing a potential reader an injustice by keeping this book live for anyone to see? I argue that we are not. It is not factually incorrect. It is not misleading in any other way. By leaving it here, it can improve. If someone who wants to flesh out a full arts management book, then they can certainly overhaul this one and ignore the text that is currently there, or they could just start a new one and otherwise disregard this text in its current state.Furthermore, I think that age, relative amount of substantial content, and demand are not appropriate metrics for whether or not a book should be deleted. A book is old; so what? We don't routinely delete books by the virtue of their age. A book is a stub; so what? Someone else can develop it. A book is not in demand; so what? Just let it lie in case it ever is in demand. The name has been fixed, the POV turned NPOV, and it is now less inflammatory. If it degrades further and cannot be fixed by active contributors, i.e. us, then I would argue for its deletion. In its current state, however, where the main currently relevant arguments point out its age, stubiness, and lack of demand, I argue that it should be kept. --Iamunknown 02:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- The name change, and the rewording of the introductory paragraph are nice changes, but they are only indicative of a last-ditch effort to keep this book when it is on the brink of deletion, not a display of the book's quality or potential. Most of the things that we delete around here, with enough spit and polish, could be made temporarily acceptable (or at least be made to avoid the most dire criticisms), but I don't see why we should keep those books either. Books are a big project, much larger then a wikipedia article, or most other types of wikimedia content. Books require vision and direction, and all too often book stubs are created that reflect a particular person's vision, but that don't make any sense to future contributors. Do we keep stubs? yes, we generally do. However, I think it's prudent for us to consider the potential for the stub to become something more, or to attract new people to the project. A stub that never becomes anything more, and never attracts any interest (at least any positive interest, with VfD nominations counting as "negative interest") is an eternal stub, which is in policy as being perfectly deletable. I would say that this book is an eternal stub, unlikely to draw attention from any further contributors. It also has a distinct dearth of meaningful content (although I will admit that there is some) and nearly as many red links as there is written content. The original author has been absent from this project for over a year now, and without him to at least answer some questions about what he had in mind, I can't imagine that this book will ever amount to anything. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I have been avoiding this page and many others
& will continue to do so. However this is a very poor stub indeed - as was pointed out in the previous VFD on the page with content it is a plug for software and without that there really is very little to it. I have no idea how that page survived the last vote - inertia and indifference to quality as usual I imagine --Herby talk thyme 18:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Can't see a reason to delete this book. The name has been changed and the humourous comment about history graduates has been removed. The book has purpose and potential. Xania
 talk 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've changed my mind. Whiteknight, you convinced me. This book is still not going anywhere despite Brian's excellent "boringfy" (straight from the edit summary :D) of the introduction and reviving of sorts. The book has purpose and potential, yes, but in its current state is a stub with no willing contributors. It should be deleted because: (1) it is in nowise helpful to the reader and (2) I would imagine that any person who wants to contribute a free "as in free speech" textbook or reference guide related to arts management would totally disregard the current structure. Furthermore, it would be unhelpful and possibly detrminetal to any further development by any interested parties. Thus I argue to delete. --Iamunknown 07:17, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Great comments from both WK and Unknown. Brian 00:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
|
