Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction Community

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. (Final vote was 8 delete, 2 keep. Votes from anonymous contributors and from accounts created after the AFD was initiated were discounted.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 19:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seduction Community

Delete. Firstly, there is less than 1000 hits on Google for this phrase. The page also has links to questionable sites and that could be construed as promotion. The Seduction article is being visited by the same contributors [1] embedding the same links [2]. PhilipO 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy explicity states that:-
Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable --PhilipO 22:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment The page now also includes what could be construed as original research, in violation of policy. --PhilipO 05:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Comment Agreed. Whoever added these ideas did it amateurishly. Are the current improvements acceptable? DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Comment The core ideas have been time-tested by thousands of people. They are neither original nor nascent. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229


  • Delete, promotional piece, non-notable. --fvw* 16:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge, I think that this is definately a notable topic for wikipedia. For example, look at the number of mainstream media articles about one seduction community guru in the media: http://www.mysterymethod.com/InTheMedia.aspx . This area truely has an extreme danger for promotion however. Essentially, even though for example this mystery person has had a lot of articles about them, the majority of the techniques and lingo of these style organized pickup artists evolved from a ton of community interaction primarily on websites, making the particular notability of any one of them more suspicious. Therefore I propose we merge this and all current and future articles on particular individuals of this community into one article. The only articles I know of in wikipedia on individual members are on David Deangelo, mystery, and Ross Jefferies. Any new articles which crop of for other "gurus" should be merged into the one article. The question is what this one article would be called. As the first person noted, there is not a widely used name for this phenomenon as yet, either by outsiders or by those in the particular groups. I propose that we stick with this article name for now and rename it to whatever seems more apropriate as time goes by. As a final argument, wikipedia voted to keep the seven styles of lightsabre fighting article, which essentially voids all delitions for notability as being hypocritical :). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.127.176.41 (talk • contribs).same IP block as the main contributor to this article. Also, the last redlink makes for a funny complaint, even if it's just using "sabre" instead of "saber" :) — Lomn
  • Delete per fvw — Lomn | Talk / RfC 02:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • KeepThis is an underground trend that should be discussed in a balanced way. The few Internet sites mentioned are the most independent ones available and probably most representative of the community being described. Let's discuss how to make the article more informative, as the subject matter is of interest. I agree with the previous comment that the subject matter has a danger for promotion. Individual members such as Deangelo, Mystery, Badboy and Jeffries are commercial interests, and may not merit having their own page. These people are four among the most well known of the commercial seduction coaches. The term "seduction community" is probably the best and most common description used. This is how the community currently describes itself. See the term's use in a recent popular book on the subject (this week THE GAME is number 15 on the NYTimes Bestseller list). This book is being widely reviewed. An alternative title for the page such as "Seduction Strategies for Men" only sounds more promotional. <-- Unsigned comment by DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 03:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links.
  • Delete. A poor attempt at viral marketing that unabashedly abuses Wikipedia's openness. -- Hadal 04:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep PhillipO has articles on Wikipedia about Roches department store, a video game and a fantasy role playing game, which are not considered promotion??! <-- Unsigned comment by 213.148.229.118 (talk • contribs), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction as well, to insert affiliated links.
  • Comment :-) Yes, articles about one the largest department stores in Ireland and one of the most famous arcade games in history. Fantasy role playing game? Perhaps :-) --PhilipO 05:34, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikispam delenda est. --FOo 06:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Hadal, upon what do you base this "viral marketing" charge? If you prefer to remove these links in favor of other, more neutral ones, please suggest them. The subject itself is worthy of an article, although it is true that there are link spammers active in this area. The current version does not contain these links. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC), c. 04:30 UTC - this user has edited this article and Seduction and inserted as well as deleted affiliated links.

  • Comment I'm going to quote User: Fubar here: "Wikipedia needs to be able to reflect all verifiable human knowledge." I fail to see how a page describing a big Irish department store or a popular video game called "Ghosts and Goblins" has more interest and value than an article about the seduction community. Suggest criticism be given to help REVISE and avoid deleting information. Everything written on this page is not intended to be promotional, but purely descriptive. Please verify information provided. Here is an excerpt from an article in the NYTimes that provides more background. Please provide suggestions to help revise and improve this article.
  • Comment Those links have been removed at your suggestion. The one site, http://www.fastseduction.com, is the moderated version of the original Usenet group. The other site is created by a nonprofit foundation, and endeavors to be neutral. Both links have been deleted. Please make some suggestions as to what pointers are acceptable. The point is not to keep removing items you personally find objectionable. Please suggest alternatives. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Compare with David_DeAngelo, an article that is entirely self-promotional. I've tried to improve it, rather than simply deleting it, but most of the external links on that article are pure spam. Shouldn't there be some consistent policy on Wikipedia?
  • Delete - Not noteworthy. not encyclopedic, at least not yet. And all these unsigned comments aren't helping. -- Malo 09:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - as per nom. --Vsion 09:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment What makes subject noteworthy and enclopedic? Compared to various other subjects on Wikipedia? The original author of the page referred to Seven_Forms_of_Lightsaber_Combat as an example, but there are many others. Please provide more guidance on how to keep improving the article for Wikipedia.
  • Delete - Biased and off-kiltered representation. i.e. a bunch of KJ BS Unsigned vote by User:128.104.55.214
  • Keep as separate article. This article is notable and the things these guys practice definitely have an effect on behavior at clubs and in relationships. I dislike the practice immensely, but it's notable nonetheless. However, some parts of it could be cleaned up a little. I don't think this article is self-promotional; it's a trend. --Quintin3265 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - inaccurate from the first sentence. Does not warrant a seperate article. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 07:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment RN, every sentence is verifiable and accurate. If not, please give us an example of what you mean so that we can improve the information.
  • Keep Nothing about this article appears to be non-encyclopedic. I strongly suspect that it has only been set as 'considered for deletion' because certain people don't like the subject matter. Unsigned comment by User:24.97.252.34

[edit] Improve This Article

  • PLEASE NOTE Unsigned comments and revisions are not likely to be taken seriously.
  • Create an account, and sign all comments and changes.
  • Vote to Keep the article on Wikipedia here OR if you see problems in the article, make suggestions or recommendations.
  • Nominate the article for improvement: this page's entry
  • Comment Votes from anonymous users and accounts that were created after this vote began will probably not be taken seriously either. See Wikipeida policy --PhilipO 02:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment You really seem to have it in for this article, Phil! The link you cited states, "Please be familiar with the policies of not biting the newcomers..." DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) Since the article has been nominated for deletion:
1. Substantial revisions have been done, taking all criticisms into account.
2. All external links have been removed except for links to mainstream books and periodicals and one Usnet Newsgroup.
3. Additional edits have been done to improve NPOV. Any other specific issues that have been clearly noted have been carefully addressed.
4. An extensive reference list has been added.
5. All wording that might be construed as promotional has been removed. The article provides both pros and cons.
In short, Phil, we don't understand what your beef is with the article at this point. Please clarify what needs to be done to improve this piece. DutchSeduction 10:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep Subject matter is somewhat controversial. The article needs to be improved and made more balanced. DutchSeduction 06:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) This user had less then 50 edits, on all this topic or closely related articles
  • Comment the page was extensively re-written after going up for AfD to remove the spammy elements. Then it was extensively re-written again after discussion on IRC, to make it more like a proper wikipedia article — it's even got an excellent reference section now!. I don't have a stake in it either way (well, I'd prefer it were deleted, just to remove the phrase "seduction community" from my user contribs ;-)) but if you're going to delete it, please delete it on the merits of the article as it stands and the notability of the community, not because it originally looked like spam. --fuddlemark

(fuddle me!) 16:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

  • CommentI have seen reference to this thing in the David DeAngelo article which is also voted for deletion. Any relationship between votes ?Hektor 01:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment DeAngelo is arguably among the most successful of the commercial dating coaches in this community. That article seems promotional is nature, and contains a number of factual errors. Perhaps it also should be marked for improvement/revision.
  • Keep it does talk about commercial products, but does not appear to be hyping them and it does give some criticism of the products. MosheZadka 18:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This topic is the main subject of a book on the New York Times bestseller list, "The Game," by Neil Strauss. If that isn't an indicator of worthiness, I don't know what is. Contributors can filter out blatantly commericial links, but the subject should be in. Unsigned comment by User:70.225.167.229
  • Keep I think this article is very intresting but it could be checked for accuaracy. Unsigned comment by User:157.62.105.5
  • Keep It's an interesting subject that I think people will find fascinating to read one way or other. The page should be kept and improved. Puga 08:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC) User:Puga has only two entries, from an account created today, all on this article
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Seduction_Community_6367.html"