Talk:David DeAngelo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Start	This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This page was previously nominated for deletion. Please see prior discussion(s) before considering re-nomination: No consensus, 6 March 2007, AFD No consensus, 29 September 2005, AFD

Archives Archive 1 - September 2005 - December 2006

Contents 1 Nice guy syndrome 2 Latest edits to 'Criticism' section 3 Uncited statements 4 Article name 5 Ad Tag 6 Biography assessment rating comment

[edit] Nice guy syndrome

Has anyone noticed that this page has been deleted? Even though this deletion discussion ame out keep? Is there any way to get the page back? Ppe42 05:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• There were three deletion attempts on this article, the first two of which failed to reach a consensus. The page you pointed to was the first. If you do some searching, you can probably find the latest deletion vote listed under Articles for Deletion from about two weeks ago.
• The only way to "get back" the page would be to list the page for undeletion. Because the delete vote was nearly unanimous, however, the chances of gaining support for the undeletion would be slim. --Quintin3265 14:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well ... bugger. I really think we needed that article. Ah well, maybe it can be resurrected at some future point. Meanwhile, I'll unlink the phrase. Ppe42 14:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Fully agreed. Nice Guy Syndrome deserves to be covered because it is a common social occurance. Indeed, it's becoming a bigger occurance than it was in the past due to changed social structures, media conditioning, etc. One reason for deletion may be that there is not enough scientific basis for it; the fact that Speed Seduction and DYD exists, and that there is much interest in it, is proof enough that Nice Guy Sydrome is there. Like many other Wikipedia articles, if we are to keep Wikipedia "current" we must accept articles on domains that are not totally established or accepted. --- Anon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.202.160.138 (talk) 08:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

A relevant page now exists at Nice guy. This is already linked in the article. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Latest edits to 'Criticism' section

DutchSeduction - I had removed the 'considered by some to be more effective' comment because it is redundant. Of course it would be 'considered by some to be more effective' - why would they propose it otherwise? The fact that it contains weasel words doesn't help its case.

Your other addition is misleading and false. Its source is an open post in a free-to-access forum. Since when has Fast Seduction 101 been commercial? Even if Dimitri, the author, is 'commercial' now, the letter was written more than a year prior to the founding of his company.

I've left the sections in for now, since I don't want to start an edit war.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 19:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

If I were to say that Fast Seduction 101 is commercial, I would incur the wrath of Formhandle! Ha. The truth is that his site is registered as a company, which by definition makes it "somewhat commercial." It also earns substantial advertising income. But why is this such an important point to you? DutchSeduction 18:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uncited statements

I've moved the following uncited statements from the article to here:

He is among the most sought-after gurus in what is known as the "Seduction Community", ^{[citation needed]} and is believed to be the first guru to include guest teachers from other programs in his seminars, ^{[citation needed]} as well as the first to introduce a monthly interview series with those he considers to be skilled in seduction and related disciplines. ^{[citation needed]}

--Amit 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate that. Though please be a bit more careful when a person is baiting you on and avoid edit wars when you can even if the other party is in the wrong. Mathmo ^Talk 15:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. --Amit 19:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name

There seems to be controversy regarding the relevant name for this article.

Hipocrite - you seem insistent that this article be located under David DeAngelo's real name (Eben Pagan).

Amit (I'll use that name, since it is how you sign your posts) - likewise, your wishes appear to be that it remains at 'David DeAngelo'.

As it is, this could degenerate into a move war. I would therefore like to start a dialogue over which should be appropriate.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 02:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Sasuke Sarutobi for initiating this discussion here. As per WP:NC(CN), the most common name of a person is to be used. It also states that it okay to use pseudonyms like Mark Twain, Marilyn Monroe, Billy the Kid. Therefore, the name of this article should be David DeAngelo. --Amit 02:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

This discussion also applies to the Mystery (seduction guru) to Erik Von Markovik moves by Hipocrite. --Amit 02:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

"David DeAngelo" is a common name. To attribute the actions of Eben Pagen to David DeAngelo without some sort of wide understanding that there's some sort of actual person here is iffy. Let's also be clear - this is a controversy - laid out in the article (unsourced, of course), which accuses DeAngelo/Pagen of also being Carter. How many possible pseudonyms can someone have before we give up and list them at their verifiable legal name? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the Christian Carter debate - there were direct links to the actual posts in which the debate took place, but they have been removed. I shall restore them.
— Sasuke Sarutobi 15:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Posts to forums are never acceptable sources. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Never Say Never Again! Mathmo ^Talk 16:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Hipocrite - The entirity of the debate was conducted within a blog. How else do you expect it to be referenced?
— Sasuke Sarutobi 16:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

If it has never been referenced by a reliable source, it never happened. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing, I'm sure you must realise the flaws with that statement. For instance I'll take a guess your birth was never referenced by a reliable source, does that mean it never happened?! Within the community these are regarded as reliable sources for the subject matter at hand. Mathmo ^Talk 16:28, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I would note that your inistance on incorprorating poorly sourced negative information about an individual is a blockable offence - please review WP:BLP. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:29, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

My view is they should be moved back to how they were before Hipocrite started moving them about without prior discussion whatsoever. For reasons such as Amit stated. Hipocrite hasn't given any good reasons why they shouldn't be there, we are not claiming the article's title is the person's legal name. Also DeAngelo is the vastly more common name he goes under than any of the others he might use, so it is blatantly obvious what is the most common name here and thus where the article should be. Mathmo ^Talk 13:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

3:1 agreement has been achieved. I'm moving the article to its original name. If Hipocrite reverts, I request that Mathmo take it up on WP:AIV. --Amit 21:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

• Just a friendly reminder here that WP:AIV is not for content disputes, which includes naming disagreements. Logical2u_Talk 00:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CON. Have your walled garden. Do not remove maintence tags. Hipocrite - «Talk» 21:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Seeing that you and others seem to like using the phrase "walled garden" a lot, I'm taking this opportunity to remind you that there is no cabal! Mathmo ^Talk 00:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad Tag

As the Ad tag is a separate issue from the name (Which is temporally solved, apparently), I've just started a minor thing here. The article is written primarily from the help of several "Subject-self-published" sources. However, I fail to see how these help the article or serve as useful. All sources should be independently verified. Being published by someone, and then used to write about that same someone, is technically not independent. There's an argument here, but it doesn't make that much sense this late at night. It involves Wikipedia articles being used as primary sources. The article deals a lot with his "Advanced Dating Techniques", which seems like either a plug, or something that would be better served as minor statements on a dating page. Removing his "Terms" and "Advice" sections would likely keep the article more concise, and less advertisement like.

Also, having a bunch of forums may violate the WP:EL rulings. Might.

So, my problems are : Conflicts of Interest (Sources are Articles published by subject), possible advertising (Both here and maybe on links), links may contain factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research, and forums, technically social networking sites.

WP:EL also says avoid blogs, but keeping their usage to a minimum would be enough for me. Hopefully this is taken a NPOV... Logical2u_Talk 00:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Jreferee 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)