Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Getting a girl

Getting a girl
This book clearly needs to be deleted, and I'm posting several comments within this section to explain why. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I have heard a number of complaints about the quality of this book, how most of the advice is ill-founded and counterproductive, the POV nature on some of its modules, and the general skew of the book towards het males. I don't know if a more neutral and refined relationship guide for all genders or sexual orientations has a place in a textbook project, but Getting a girl is certainly not it. It makes Wikibooks look like a joke. Dysprosia 01:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I certainly agree that a textbook about relationships is a perfectly valid topic for us. But this book is certainly not it.  I think you said this quite well. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: I'll agree that the book sucks, but the premise is a good one, and possibly, with time and more mature contributors, it will improve.  Look at how many relationship books are on the shelves of mainstream bookstores.  There's clearly a demand.  Why shouldn't a Wiki Book exist to satisfy that demand?  It terms of the accusations of sexism and, more specifically, heterosexism, that's an argument brought on by a radical form of political correctness that was left behind by the world ten years ago.  This book was obviously, though not explicitly, written for straight men on how to get straight women (or boys to get girls, as the title implies).  Relationship books, like the current best-seller "He's Just Not That Into You", have a sex-specific bent by their very nature.  So my vote, keep it.  A radical overhaul of the contents may be in order, and possibly the Wikiquette, but the book itself should stay.


 * The mere fact that "there ought to be a book" is not sufficient for this project. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * delete - no redeming qualities. Deleting and starting over (with a better title) is better than  keeping this "book". Gentgeen 07:38, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete Nothing to add to Gentgeen's comments. Yann 10:35, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the title thing. That kind of a title doesn't have much of a chance of attracting those mature contributors the book so desperately needs. It's one of those topics that more people on the internet would talk about in the manner of this book than in the manner of best-sellers. - SamE 11:06, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete This book is very poor quality, not suitable for most (if not all) classroom environments. There are far better sources of this type of information on the internet, and I observed incompetant people editing the book. This book is divisive, and adds little value to wikibooks, yet brings much baggage. Let's delete it and move on. A complete start over, as mentioned by Gentgeen, would be acceptable. Lesbians, gays, and incompetants should not be welcome in the new version, if it is created.


 * Keep. No reason to delete this book.  Its topic isn't forbidden by any codified Wikibooks policy I know of.  It might have a poor title and contents, but you don't need to use VfD to change those. Fugg 09:07, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * If this book is not forbidden by any codified Wikibooks policy, this shows a deficiency in policy, not the validity of the book. We can and should change policy to make it much more clear that any random goofball ideas does not a textbook make.  --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Please do not delete the book as the advise is quite healthy and needed for few people.  Also, it is not necessary to take it off right away.


 * Keep Maybe the title should be "The Hetrosexual man's guide to finding a partner" but I see no reason why a book of this topic should not be allowed. And don't vote for something to be deleted simply because it offends your morality - that is mendacious.  Here's an idea instead of going for the nuclear option we send in some international peacekeepers and edit the book to make it better.  Maybe we will even teach the people who started the book a thing or two! Simontzu


 * Keep: Not sure if my vote's late...but the title should be changed. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I count a 5 to 4 vote in favor of deletion. I propose we delete it now. It certainly makes wikibooks look like a joke
 * 5/4 is hardly consensus. Sure it needs improvement and a name change, but that's where a lot of wikibooks may have started off.  Everything has to start off somewhere. -Frazzydee|&#9997; 04:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't believe that a NPOV textbook style will ever allow a quality book on this subject. Either it will be watered down and marginal, at best, or it will completely suck, like it does now. There are too many liberals here to allow this book to prosper. For example, a lesbian was editing out work done on the book. Does a lesbian have any business editing a book for men to meet women? Does political correctness, NPOV, and a textbook nature really address this subject correctly? Let's assume that the book reaches (my version of) its goals: it teaches young men what older men now know, and wish they knew when they were young. If it reaches that goal, it will have material that may be offensive to young, ignorant, liberal women, who will water the book down to uselessness. This very subject does not belong in wikibooks, this is a place for developing math and physics books. Not a place to discuss this topic. Let's assume wikibooks prospers and becomes the source of cirriculum for some school districts. Would you agree that this book would be a thorn in wikibooks side? This book will either forever suck, or if its high quality, it will be a thorn. Either way, it needs to be deleted. If you do not agree, let's take it one step further. Let's have a book on how to have anal sex correctly. That doesnt cause you any problems? Well, let's crank it up to "How to have sex with animals". Now let's have some uptight liberals working for the school district, like most of them do, who must evaluate wikibooks. "Whoa, they have a book on having sex with animals? Do we want to be associated with them? No way. Let's go back to paying the publishers to take advantage of us."


 * Precisely. I don't endorse the slams on liberals, nor your reasoning in full, but I do agree with the need for us to have high standards, and also that not every kind of book is compatible with our goals and methods. --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: The book is quite enlightening and educative compared to others out there!!


 * Keep: Conan 08:45, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep: I don't see any reason why Wikibooks should be restricted to "maths and physics" books. There is more to life than maths and physics, and the Wikibook does contain some very simple truths which nevertheless are not known to everybody. Also, the book does not appear sexist to me and is clearly written for heterosexual men. The idea that lesbians are discriminated against because of the title is ridiculous. There is no reason why lesbian issues have to be included. Nobody will attack a lesbian for writing a book with the same title where only lesbian issues are discussed. Talking equal rights here, not majority pressure.
 * *Keep: if it offends you, don't read it, or go write a cookbook. Jm51 01:21, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * 9 votes to keep, 5 delete, and it's been over a week. Jm51 06:56, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete The premise of the book is dubious, and the content (to the extent that I was willing to read) was pure conjecture.  Just because publishers are willing to put out books as appalling as this (or worse even), doesn't mean we should support it as well.  There are plenty of trite, trivial, nonsensical, demeaning, offensive, and unscientific books on every bookstore's shelves (some of the worst being found in the self-help section with titles like this), but I think we ought to have higher standards that those shared by the publishing industry as a whole.  This is not to say that a good and useful book couldn't be written on courting, just that it's hard to imagine one, and that this is so far removed from being one that it should simply be deleted. 


 * Delete I don't think it meets the standards of what we want to see in wikibooks, and the title itself is offensive. MShonle 02:08, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Admitted, I can understand the faults of this title however it is much more difficult to create a Wiki related project than it is to fix an existing one. If you have a problem with something in this title make your own addition/modification to it or the Wiki-Book Library.--Sibios 05:33, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Let me close by making clear what I'm saying. If the decision is to keep the book, then I'm going to act to change policy so as to eliminate the book anyway.  It seems unfortunate if it comes to that.  A healthier process would be to reach a more clear understanding of the mission of WikiBooks, and the development of alternatives if people really want them.  But I will not tolerate a book like this under the auspices of the Wikimedia Foundation.  It is offensive, sexist, and stupid.  --Jimbo Wales 22:27, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * One more one last comment. I would support a vote about what to do about the book.  Deletion is not the only viable option.  My main point is that "accepting it" as-is, is not possible.  It could be rewritten into a proper text, it could be moved (to wikicities, say), it could be deleted.  I want the community here to feel empowered to make decisions.  It's just that there are core principles of the wikimedia foundation that make some answers impossible. --Jimbo Wales 23:01, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sexist, not adapted for Wikibooks. Yann 22:50, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Offensive, sexist, and stupid - that sums it up. --mav 05:07, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I would have found some of that stuff damn useful about 15 years ago. AlbertCahalan 05:16, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, salvage the basic idea and occasional useful content (like the charming list of ideas for dates) into new wikibook. Sj 04:16, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * see Getting a date.

Deleted, by my count, the vote was 10-5 (I only counted signed votes by editors with substantial edits/history at the project) Gentgeen 10:01, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)