Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Guide to Social Activity/Courtship

Getting a date
The current version is poorly written, but I do not understand how it is "not a textbook". Does it violate WB:WIW? By Deletion policy, do we delete it? --Kernigh 23:31, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment First off, i can't imagine that "Getting a Date" could ever become a textbook. Maybe some colleges have some cool majors that I didnt know about. I would love to be the professor for "How to Get a Date" class. I don't think necessarily that we need to delete this, but i don't doubt for a moment that it will fall on the chopping block eventually. Maybe we should put up a warning message telling the author that the book has attracted some VfD attention, and they should consider moving this to a more appropriate venue, before we vote officially to kill it. --Whiteknight T C E 23:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is against policy, and needs to go the way of the dodo. --Whiteknight T C E 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Book needs editing, not deletion. See also Requests for deletion/Getting a girl and Talk:Getting a date. I am concerned that users tried to discuss deletion at Talk:Getting a date instead of here. --Kernigh 05:15, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * keep. "howto" fits policy. Mikkalai 18:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" Its a HowTo.  People take courses in it.  It could become a good book because psychologists have done tons of good research on dating.  What it needs is editors who are familiar with the psychological literature on dating; plus a name change.  At minimum, Jimbo is wrong to nominate it for speedy deletion. - Nyarlathotep 17:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This doesn't follow the basic purpose of Wikibooks, i.e. textbooks. This is NOT a textbook. Yann 20:36, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * ""Keep"" A few years ago I wrote a relationships book, which included several "how to get a date" chapters. I prefer to refer to those chapters as "practical" as opposed to "theoretical" chapters. The subject has far more depth than most people realize. E.g., the research on where couples met is surprising but makes sense when you see it (short version: personal ads are a waste of time, school and work are good for meeting people, but most couples met doing unique things no other couples were doing). I would be happy to put some material from my book into this wiki-book. I.e., I would be happy to do the editing that others has called for. On the other hand, I'm working on another wiki-book so I don't see when I'll have the time. But if someone else wants to do this, I'll send you some chapters from my book, in MS Word format, and you can wiki them. My book is "Hearts and Minds: How Our Brains Are Hardwired for Relatioships." My user name is Tdkehoe. (I apologize if I'm doing something wrong, this is my first attempt at wiki-anything!)Thomas David Kehoe 22:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Can I double my keep? ;)  This is exactly what I was talking about.  As for theeory, pick up a copy of the selfish gene by Richard Dawkins, after reading that I've never felt anything bizzare which either gender did was unexplainable.  Anyway, such things really can be made into textbooks, no douibt about that.  Name change might be needed however.  Nyarlathotep 11:54, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I doubt that this could ever become a usable wikibook, but even if one was determined for it to become one, it's currently so far off on the wrong track that it would be better to discard it and simply start over. It's full of useless generalizations, sexist quips and it goes very far off of the NPOV scale.  It also seems to be primarily anecdotal, common sensical, or drawn from unreliable sources.  Given that there is a fair amount of determination to keep such a book, I think a case could be made that we should set it up as an non-NPOV work that is framed as such, allowing it to be self-contradictory as a compendium of quotes, advice, and references relating to the subject matter.  A strong warning should be given at the top that the information contained might be contradictory, useless, misleading, or even harmful, and that the reader should beware and maintain a degree of skepticism regarding the contents of the work.  Anyhow, here are some examples of the garbage that fills the book currently:
 * Women adore men's physical strength especially when they don't throw their weight around or bully people, but instead use their physical strength to help people and protect them. One example is women's fascination with muscular lifeguards.
 * A girl likes to know that you would fight for her honor and to keep her safe (whether she can defend herself or not)
 * A guy's ability to bring financial stability and security to a girl's life is very attractive.
 * All girls are devious and very crafty...you can't beat them at their game, so make up your own game.
 * If a girl seems to be flirting with a few other guys as well as you, she may be interested in all the guys and may be waiting for someone to decide to make a move (this is known as "casting the net wide").
 * and so on. 
 * If anyone wants, then they can edit the book and remove sentences like the above. I have not reached most of these sentences yet. --Kernigh 01:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Guide to Social Activity/Courtship
I moved Getting a date to Guide to Social Activity/Courtship so that I could make improvements. See Talk:Guide to Social Activity/Courtship. The vfd process continues above. --Kernigh 22:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)