Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flipseduction

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 in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 05:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flipseduction

Nominated for speedy deletion on basis of non-notability. Contested by creator. Brought to AFD for consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - 66 total google hits, 8 with similar search results omitted. Of those 8, all of them are for a username on a forum/webpage. 0 related google hits for "Ethan Wilson" seduction community. The group that the subject of the article created had 148 myspace members. Certainly not notable. In the edit summary of the creation of the page, the author compares Flipseduction with Badboy Lifestyle. While I am not really convinced that Badboy deserves an article, a google search for badboy seduction yields 169,000 hits. The alexa rank for Badboy's website is around 146,000. Flipseduction does not have a dedicated website, only a group on myspace. (As far as I know, and if he does have a website that doesn't turn up from a google search, I doubt it is notable) Stylelife.com could be related to the author, and it has a fairly high alexa rank at around 26000. I was curious to see what is on this site and if it was indeed related to flipstyle, but you must create a username/password and supply a valid email to see any part of the site. Certainly this is not notable. Fopkins | Talk 00:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete per above. will381796 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete not notable, plus use of myspace as references is questionable. --Jon Cates 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete, no verification from reliable sources that this individual meets WP:BIO. --Kinu ^t/_c 01:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom Whpq 02:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — per above. Dionyseus 02:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • What? You're using wikivoter, I see. - Richardcavell 02:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC) User has corrected his vote to match his intention. - Richardcavell 02:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Do you have an objection to my vote? Dionyseus 02:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Question: Do you really mean keep? Your comment is "per above" — all of the above are deletes with reasons to delete. — ERcheck (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Thanks for pointing that out, I have fixed the vote. Dionyseus 02:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above AdamBiswanger1 02:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. It'll be hard to be in accordance to WP:RS when there are basically no verifiable. sources. --Nishkid64 15:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above - questions as to notability, fatal reliable source problems. - Corporal Tunnel 17:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fopkins could have summarized all that into 1 sentence: Not verified, non-notable ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 20:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. If you follow the links in the article they do nothing to support notability. The first link goes to a password protected site. The others do not go to valid reliable sources supporting notability. MySpace articles do not support notability in my opinion but can be acceptable on the article for other reasons, as long as notability is established by other means. GBYork 15:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.