- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the discussion was No consensus - sadly, it doesn't look like anyone will offer any advice on the inclusion standards for books. I certainly can't. Consider Wikipedia:Village Pump? Wily D 08:35, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
Book:Understanding Performance
I am very new to books, but this seems like a book with a too poorly defined inclusion criteria. I would imagine book subjects need to have a clear cut off point for subjects, and a fairly narrow scope, otherwise they don't work. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback Mercurywoodrose.
- To your first point about inclusion criteria, I think I understand your perspective: the book that I put together aggregates a wide-range of topics related to ways people have tried to organize their work to perform effectively. The purpose of the effort was/is to illustrate how a bit of the history and evolution of performance improvement/management theory. What it lacks right now, I think is an introduction and a structure for logically transitioning from one topic to another. For that reason, I can see why the disparate pieces might seem lack a unifying theme/inclusion criteria - in fact, I was thinking about the book the other day and wondering whether it'd make sense/be approachable to others. I'd like to spend some time over the coming year or so figuring out how/whether I can edit it into a format that does that idea justice.
- To your second point about clear cut off points for subjects and narrow scope, I'd have to caveat with my original response and say that some revision could make this book more approachable, but clear cut off points and narrow scope are not necessary components of a book subject - for example, take encyclopedias which have as their central subject/purpose the aggregation of all topics; or layman's American history books, which aggregate various topics with only geography and nation serving as the bound to scope across time; or, in the realm of fiction
Catch-22 or
Ulysses or
the Tin Drum, which all range far and wide, but still work marvelously. Happy to continue the conversation...
Elipatwood (
talk) 03:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
elipatwood
Elipatwood (
talk) 03:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that the criteria for creating a book are much different than for an article, or even a category. I think the selection of articles you have chosen make sense, of course. I think the title could be tweaked, but I don't have any bright ideas. the book I created, Book:East Bay Regional Parks, is of course highly defined, and I also see one of the most popular book subjects is rock bands, which again are easily defined. I think to appreciate what you are trying to do, I should try to create a book based around an idea, and see what I can come up with. I am not really interested in deleting your book, so much as hearing what standards are. -- Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 08:28, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.