Template talk:Notable Members of The Seduction Community
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This template was considered for deletion on 2007 February 11. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
I think as a good guide, we should say you need to be able to find three news articles about someone before we count them as notable - otherwise we start to have people like Ray Gordon, Shark, stRiPPed, and so on adding vanity pages about themselves. Any thoughts?
WoodenBuddha 12:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I would like to get a bit more specific on exactly what this template is for, or else it will get impossibly long and useless. I agree very much with renaming it from "Commercial Seduction Teachers" to "Notable Members of the Seduction Community." There are many commercial seduction teachers who are not part of the seduction community, or only have a tangential relationship to it. For inclusion into this template, it seems obvious that someone should be (a) notable, and (b) a member of the seduction community. I also think that "Notable Members of The Seduction Community" should mean that the person be notable as a member of the seduction community. Otherwise, anyone who has achieved any kind of fame, and happened to browse seduction forums could be a considered a "notable member of the seduction community." Not only should someone be notable in the wikipedia sense, but they should also be notable and influential within the community. Also, I would like to comment on what is meant by "member." I think to qualify as a "notable member of the seduction community," we should talk about people who's ideas have been influenced by the community, and who's ideas have influenced the community. There are many people who teach seduction, or who advocate similar ideas to the community, but they won't qualify as notable members of the seduction community unless they are actually involved in the community in some way. If we don't have some ground rules like these, the template will get impossibly long, and the people included in it less and less related to the seduction community, which will put it at risk for deletion. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Another issue, this template seems to be about people, but one of its entries is a company. Perhaps we should (a) change RSD to TylerDurden and link it to the RSD page, or (b) re-make the template and call it "notable teachers in the seduction community" or something. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
We could easily move the page, rather than remake it. I do see your point, and I thought about this myself, but it works at the moment :) WoodenBuddha 07:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I would like to add that "Notable Members of The Seduction Community" may not be an appropriate title for this template as the term "notable" doesn't fit. If we are going to create a template about gurus or notable people and put it on a lot of related sites such as "Seduction Community" or member pages, why don't we call it "Pioneers of the Seduction Community" or "Pioneers of Seduction and PU"? This gives us much more breathing space and makes it clearer who should be added. We really should make a criteria list as to who is eligible to be on the eventual template. I just make a list you can edit it afterwards. Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Criteria For Making The List
1. Credibility - Press coverage in form of at least 3 news articles seems a reasonable indicator of credibility.
2. History - You can only be a "Pioneer" if you have contributed something over a decent amount of time. Therefore I would suggest that if the person hasn't been around for more than at least 2 or 3 years, he should not be eligible for this list.
3. Quality - May be granted if the person has contributed something of quality (articles, products, ...) which does not fall in the seduction-junk category.
4. ?
Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Additions
In the interests of keeping the template from getting too long and clunky, I think it's reasonable to require people to satisfy a burden of proof for showing why someone qualifies before adding them. I also suggest that people be only added to the template once they have a wikipedia page (this will help satisfy the requirement that they be notable, and it will avoid nasty-looking red links). --SecondSight 00:32, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Nick
I added Nick from www.playboyskool.de to this template, whom I also created the wikipedia page about. I found numerous media articles about him and it appears he will also be at cliffs PU convention this summer (2006). Apparently he has been around for years, mainly in Europe.
- See my comments on his page. I removed him, because there is no evidence so far that he is actually a member of the seduction community. It's encouraging that he will be at Cliffs, but I don't think that alone is enough to qualify him as a community member. If you can show that his ideas are substantially influenced by the community, or that he is well-known in the community in Europe and it's simply a fluke that neither WoodenBuddha nor I have heard of him, then we can put him back in the template. I think it's reasonable to require a burden of proof for people who want to add new names to it. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not too sure if he has contributed something to fastseduction, but he definately made his mark in the European Seduction Community. I might need to point out that the seduction community isn't solely located in North America and isn't centralised to a few websites. Be aware that all the new PU and Seduction related material is being spread through an underground community and has only recently surfaced and gone public because of The Game by Neil Strauss. I will add him later on, but I feel that his member site needs to be updated first. Johnny Rocketfingers 16:22, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Ron Louis and David Copeland
I've noticed some attempts to add Ron Louis and David Copeland to the template. I have heard them, and they are commercial seduction teachers who perhaps deserve a wikipedia article of their own. But as far as I know, they are not involved in the community in any significant way. So they should not be added back in without justification being provided. --SecondSight 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Stephen Nash
I added Stephen Nash because he was mentioned in the Game, as Playboyla, has gotten news articles in a few New York newspapers, the Chicago Tribune, and has been getting media requests through NBC, and BBC. He also continues to blog with free advice regularly, and most in the seduction community respect his opinion.
Dglass81 13:33, 10 Feb 2007 (UTC)
