kelvSYC wrote:
I guess that I'm trying to modify the deletion policy somewhat to allow *some* forking of Wikipedia content, provided that the content on Wikibooks really is an expansion of the Wikipedia article and not just some POV fight or fork of Wikipedia content. The nature of Wikibooks certainly allows almost any article on Wikipedia to be turned into a book, provided there are interested parties willing to write the content. Forbidding any fork would, in effect, kill almost any Wikibook stub right now.
We do not allow any content that isn't considered to be instructional material. The spirit of WB:WIN is that if you want to expand a WP article, then do it on WP. Personally, I am opposed to any Wikipedia forking in general because of the fact that I consider encyclopedia articles are not by itself instructional material. Based on your post, [[The Biography of Nikola Tesla]] would have been deleted whether we have the changed policy or not, due to it originating from an edit war.
I have to say that, to some real extent, the "books" part of Wikibooks is really a misnomer: it's not clearly intuitive that we are writing textbooks of instructional material on this wiki.
From following discussion on Foundation-l, it seems as though a number of people at Wikipedia and Meta have a very different opinion of what Wikibooks is all about, and it seems as though Wikibooks has in effect been turned into a general repository of non-fiction book-length topics. In particular, discussions around http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_new_projects seem to indicate a more general attitude toward Wikibooks.
One of the problems that Wikibooks is suffering from right now is that Wikiversity is not really a successful project in itself. Yes, there is content there, but even project like Virtual University (http://www.vu.org/) show more of a real academic environment. Another one is Diversity University (http://www.du.org/). Even if Wikiversity were brought up to these somewhat modest standards, the auxuallary role of Wikibooks would be considerably more apparant. Instead, Wikibooks is percieved as an auxuallary role to Wikipedia and the other "sister projects" of the Wikimedia Foundation, which has in effect a broading of scope effect to Wikibooks.
On Wikibooks itself I've been involved with a minor edit war where some people have tried to come into one of the Wikibooks I've created and try to turn it into a subject-based Wikipedia, and I've resisted the effort, particuarly on the talk pages. Somehow the idea that content on Wikibooks should be a book rather than a bunch of web pages loosely connected does not always get across.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that Wikibooks is drifting from its original and noble foundations, and I really don't see significant effort to try and go back to those roots. Nor do I see any desire by the newer Wikibookians to try and follow that ideal, at least to the letter as supplimental materials to Wikiversity or to support specific academic standards requirements. Let me put it more directly and specifc then: How many Wikibooks that can be used as a textbook for any major college or university, or follows state or national academic requirements to be used as the basis for curriculm development as a textbook? The FHSST books are based on this type of standard, but that does come from outside Wikibooks to at least get it started. Books like "How to Build a Pykrete Bong" are more typical to Wikibooks, unfortunately.
I fail to see what the origin of motivation for creating a Wikibook has to do with if it gets deleted or not. It should IMHO (and apparently this opinion is not shared) stand on its own merits independently of other content on other Wikimedia projects. I have posted requests for deletion for content that seems to be a pure fork of Wikipedia content (and nothing added) to Wikibooks, and there are several Wikibook modules that really do need to be deleted on this basis.
There really isn't an effort on Wikipedia to allow book-length material either, which is one reason why the Nikola Tesla information was put here on Wikibooks. While part of an edit war, it seems as though contributors at Wikipedia are being told to go away, and that some admins at Wikibooks are saying the same thing. This is not a good thing to do in either case, and weakens both communities as a result. If, as you seem to suggest, that Wikibooks should be for pure textbook content, perhaps Wikibooks itself needs to fork and a separation between academic books and other non-fiction materials needs to take place.