Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/The Guide for the Serious Smoker

The Guide for the Serious Smoker
It can sound that I am campaigning against smoking. But then the title seems to glorify the act of smoking. Till the time all the facts in this wikibook are written and completed, it might continue to look like a book glorifying the "Serious Smoker". Since I could not find a section on Re-Titling of wikibook (Please do relocate the request if such section exist). I have added the entry here. I Propose that the title be more appropriate. I propose new title could be:


 * Facts about Smoking
 * History of Smoking

Also it has been categorized in "Recreational activities". (Yndesai (talk) 09:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC))


 * I think some people might want to discuss whether a book about smoking as a recreational activity is appropriate on Wikibooks. I think such a discussion would be a waste of time because The Guide for the Serious Smoker should be deleted in any case since it only consists of two stub pages and there hasn't been any substantial development since the day of creation of these two pages two years ago. --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete: Its categorization is a result of an edit I've made. Given the content, it seemed to be the closest match other than just throwing it into "miscellaneous".  It seems to me to be propaganda or advocacy, both out of scope at Wikibooks.  That combined with lack of content leads me to agree with deletion. – Adrignola talk 13:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: Did you wish to adopt this book to improve it Yndesai, or was renaming it all you had in mind? --dark lama  14:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 *  Answer  : I am not adopting this book but yes some information is there in this book which can be considered as a probable content by other users. If by changing the title it can be kept we can migrate this content to new title. My vote is for deletion. Symbol delete vote.svg - Yndesai (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete: I think this could be within scope, but this looks like an abandoned book displaying intent and no actual content, and fails to have a decent definition of what it is about. --dark lama  15:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't feel qualified enough to vote here, not being very familiar with Wikibooks policies and modus operandi, but here's an idea I thought I'd throw out: perhaps we should have a book on how to stop smoking, for addicted smokers? That seems like it would be more popular and logical than something that borderline glorifies smoking like this book. Tempodivalse 16:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A possibility, but anyone wanting to create such a book would likely want to start from scratch and so even if this book were renamed, they'd probably choose a new name anyway, simply to avoid stepping on anyone's toes (if they don't notice the original author has been gone for two years). – Adrignola talk 16:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, for perspective: Although the word "vote" is so handily short and simple that we all slip and use it from time to time, there's been pretty consistent sense of the Wikibooks community that these deletion discussions are not votes.  Feeling was strong enough that finally, about a year ago, we bit the bullet and changed the entrenched legacy name of this page &mdash; Votes for deletion, which had led to endless explanations that the name was a misnomer &mdash; to Requests for deletion.  A reading room thread a while ago looked for an alternative word, with no runaway success; "position" is three syllables,  and "stance" is unsimple from too many consonant sounds.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:33, 8 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I !vote for "vote." It is an error to consider "vote," normal English, to only mean that decisions are based on majority rule, which is the real basis for objection. How decisions are made are a separate issue from how comments are sorted. "Votes" implies some clear decision, and votes may be multivalent. "Comment" carries no such implication, so RfDs include both comments and, yes, votes. --Abd (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's not an accurate characterization of the 'real basis for objection'. I really do understand (not being sarcastic!) that putting words into others' mouths can happen so facilely that one doesn't even notice having done it, but that just makes it all the more helpful if someone gives you a friendly heads-up when you have.  This is just a friendly heads-up.  --Pi zero (talk) 06:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikiversity leave behind a soft redirect for a time. The arguments about this being an advocacy page are incorrect, at the top level. There is some advocacy on the next level down, in the Introduction. On the other hand, what is said there is the actual attitude of real smokers. OR is a problem, perhaps, though I'm pretty sure that sources could be found, especially older ones.
 * Are there any serious smokers? Do I really need to ask this question?
 * Do they have a need for education?
 * Is a book that just says "SMOKING IS BAD" going to help them? After all, it says this on every pack of cigarettes! (In the U.S, at least.)
 * How about a serious book for serious smokers, that gives them unbiased and neutral and, indeed, nonjudgmental information about smoking? All aspects of smoking, including its use as a form of self-medication, including the pleasure (isn't it obviously a pleasure for some people, just as isn't it obviously addictive, as any smoker knows, unless they are very new to the habit, and even then, they'd have to be awfully dim?) People will risk addiction, even accept it, for certain positive benefits.
 * But since there is some objection here, and the original author seems long gone, and there may be nobody here willing to work on this book, I suggest transwiki to Wikiversity, where an educational resource on Smoking can be developed, and this book could be a part of it. Properly developed, it might then come back here, or not.
 * When a page is transwiki'd, my suggestion is that a user at the target wiki should first agree to "sponsor" it, i.e, at least to watch it. I'll agree to sponsor this book there. Even though I'm not a smoker and smoking killed my father (lung cancer), and some of my kids took up the habit, and you might imagine how I feel about that.... --Abd (talk) 00:24, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Abd on transwiki my only observation is that the title can be more neutral than what it is . . . -Yndesai (talk) 07:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, I'm not going to join this discussion, but I hope everyone realizes that this discussion already contains more text than the two stub pages we are talking about. :D --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)