|
Non-notable philosophy/personal opinion of a single user here Kurt Kawohl who is pushing/spamming his POV. His related content has been previously deleted on various places for these same reasons:
As another user stated correctly on one of these past deletions, this material Transcendentalist Theology is more like a personal essay and belongs on a personal website (which this user Kurt already has here) and not in an Encyclopedia. Its not surprising that Kurt is the only editor of this article and no one has edited it since he created it in August 2006. Also, the first paragraph of this article has a link to http://transcendentalists.org which is another personal website of Kurt. --Zddune 08:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - what Zddune said, plus it would appear that Kurt used sock puppetry in the WP universist movement voting. Webaware 21:56, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Xania
 talk 13:02, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I see no issue publishing something about Transcenditionalist Theory here, as long as it fits policy (is NPOV and actually makes a book). It is entirely possible to write a Theology book with a NPOV, as long as Kurt is willing to take up the workload for that. I'm leaning towards keep right now, but there seems to be some bad faith going in here. I can easily see this material thrown out of wikiquotes. Wikipedia... maybe. I don't have access to the full article, so I'm not sure what it looked like. --Dragontamer 18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as per Zddune. Tommciver 09:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
*Weak Keep - I am in general agreement with Dragontamer on this issue. As long as original research and NPOV guidelines are generally kept (I don't like to see things completely made up by an author amounting to essentially fiction) this isn't really that big of a deal. There are other theology Wikibooks that have a similar theme to this, although I would like to see perhaps a more complete outline (sample table of contents, etc.) that would happen with this book for it to go beyond the stub that currently exists. --Rob Horning 07:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. I'm very unsure about this one. I agree with Dragontamer and Rob Horning that as long as OR and NPOV policies are adhered to, then I have nothing against a wikibook. The past version didn't fulfill these requirements and the current one isn't anything near a book — at most a resemblance of an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia's w:Kkawohl stated: "My literary qualities are sorely wanting." Is this the same Kurt Kawohl that started this book? Are there any other potential contributors to this project. The founder of Transcendentalism Today, Org. is Kurt Kawohl. Are he and our contributor the one and the same? If so, is this really the proper person to contribute a wikibook on the subject? I think this may be the wrong type of original research.
I'm all for keeping shoots, but I'm greatly concerned about the prospects of this one. --Swift 15:50, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Doing some futher digging around, I noticed that this file has been up for a VfD before, and deleted at least twice. The most recent deletion was due to an apparent copyright violation, although considering the author of some of those documents appears to have added the content, that may have been an improper deletion. I've restored the full history of this page for the purpose of this discussion, although this (the restoration) shouldn't be interpreted as justification for keeping the content here on Wikibooks by itself. Surprisingly, this was one of the very first Wikibook modules ever created back elsewhen. Now to find the previous archived VfD discussion about this page.... --Rob Horning 18:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've placed a message about the other pages this editor may well be involved in on their talk page following Swift's example --Herby talk thyme 19:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Still more digging. VfD page history from the first delete shows no sign of a VfD discussion, and the same goes for the latter.
- Also, I'm on the verge of changing to "Delete". I'm seeing less and less potential for something policy abiding coming from this. --Swift 06:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, this is the same Kurt Kawohl who started the book. I dont have any problem with any of the work as well, as long as it follows policy but unfortunately, Kurt is on an Internet Spam mission (see Google here) and WikiBooks is part of his spam. What he has done is write personal essays on Transcendentalism and related subjects and then spam it on the Internet in an attempt to make it famous and get it accepted by people. His other articles that he has just added to Wikibooks a few days ago may also need to be considered for deletion. They are:
- Theology/Urantian theology - only a collection of external links to his website
- Urantia United Foreword - This is a copyright violation. Here he writes himself: "Urantia United (Earth United) is in large part an edited, condensed version of the Urantia Book by Kurt Kawohl. " - He edited the Urantia Book according to his own beliefs and then placed it in an article.
- After having his material deleted so many times before, he still doesnt care if he's violating policies and continues to spam the Internet including Wikibooks. --Zddune 20:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as clever self-promoting spam. Kellen T 14:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - I'm changing my vote to delete. Going over the edit histories, and in particular the new content that this user seems to be adding to Wikibooks, it seems as though it is a sort of spam after a manner. While he may be granting Wikibooks a license (I don't think the copyright issues are huge here as the author is granting permission), it still smacks strongly of original research. I don't see any verifiability to any of this, in terms of outside sources of information that this Wikibooks is already copying verbatium. We do accept philosohpical books like discussions of the Koran and the Bible, but those have nearly countless sources of information to draw upon if you want to do a serious study of those philosohpies. And as I pointed out strongly on the Staff Lounge, Wikibooks is not a place to publish as a vanity press. There are specific goals in mind for Wikibooks, and the publication of these books doesn't fit in even close to those goals. I would like to see some counter justification, but I don't see it. In terms of original research, I don't see how legitimately anybody else could possible be able to contribute to this (and the other books this user has added) in a meaningful way to extend the ideas that have been presented. At best only minor edits, not a major reworking based on scholarly knowledge and external (to Wikibooks) sources of knowledge. --Rob Horning 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
|
talk 22:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
