Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tips on how to be romantic

Tips on how to be romantic
Not encyclopedic material. Possibly transwiki, but I'm not sure where.-gadfium 23:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. or transwiki as a "How to"? ;) Rmhermen 23:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * delete. This reminds me very much of one of those email forwards. I haven't checked for a copyvio yet though. Thryduulf 23:49, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think it's a copyvio. No Google hits on things like "note surprise" "steam surprise". Built up by a single contributor, User:Kbg, incrementally in a long series of edits. Minor spelling and punctuation errors, probably typos rather than errors, such as "Balloon" spelled first correctly, then incorrectly as "baloon," are not typical of "one of those email forwards." But I think it does fall under the rubric of "personal essay" or "original research." I wonder whether the contributor has considered submitting this to a magazine... they seem to love articles that can be billed on the cover as "47 ways to..." or "22 great ideas for..." Dpbsmith (talk) 00:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. It's not badly written, but it's not encyclopedic either. Perhaps Kbg should consider moving this to personal user space. --Deathphoenix 01:25, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, WP not a how-to manual. Wyss 03:04, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I speedied it before it came here, because (i) in the form in which I read it it said almost nothing (it's grown a lot since), and (ii) at best it promised to become a how-to, and, well, see Wyss's comment. (I realized that strictly speaking neither of these was grounds for a speedy, but was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, that it's common practice to speedy new articles that have multiple serious problems.) So anyway, WP is not a how-to manual. (And even if it were, this would need a lot of work.) Delete. -- Hoary 03:31, 2005 Jan 13 (UTC)
 * Look, OK, I'm just being difficult and argumentative, but for the record I do NOT think there is any policy to the effect that "Wikipedia is not a how-to manual." What Wikipedia is not says nothing about this, and How-to points squarely in the opposite direction. There's simply no consensus on this point, just as there isn't consensus about high schools. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:42, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - assumption that all this would apply to absolutely everyone is nonsense - Skysmith 09:54, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this, smoothly, slowly, and sexily, baby. Ohhh yeah.  Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  13:40, Jan 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as personal essay/original research. This is not well-established factual, verifiable, properly sourced material. At best this is entertaining with a germ or two of truth in it. Entertaining essays with germs of truth in them are not encyclopedia articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:44, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete because this seems very specialized rather than pandemic. Maybe what works on his significant other doesn't work on everyone. In addition, this article uses a lot of slang words, is not wikified in the least bit, and needs too much improvement to be of encyclopedic value to anyone. Chardish 03:36, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Not an encyclopedia article. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:59, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)