Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badboy Lifestyle 2

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

The result was delete. Lacking reliable sources (4 of 5 sources refer to badboylifestyle.com, the other to Google video); fails to assert notability. —Doug Bell talk 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Badboy Lifestyle

Badboy Lifestyle (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable corporation Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Is the second nomination, an earlier nomination failed, it is here. Mathmo Talk 13:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP. Article seems to be just a list of someone's ideas about seduction. (Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry. "Seduction guru"!?) Walton monarchist89 17:32, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
    • You mentioned the sources that are there, that is what is needed for an article to stay. Your intial disbelief that this exists shouldn't effect your end view of keeping on this AfD. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. How about actually providing some reasons why the article supposedly fails WP:CORP. It has two sources, plus a link to a TV segment. How is that non-notable? (Also, there are more articles listed on their media page in magazines like Playboy and Cosmopolitan that could be incorporated into the page.) As for being a "list of someone's ideas about seduction," that "someone" is the founder of the company. Don't you think his ideas about how seduction works are relevant to this page, considering that the company makes money by teaching them? Walton monarchist89 says "Were it not for the sources, I would have had difficulty believing that this was even a real industry." So you admit that the page is sourced, but you don't seem to feel any need to explain what is wrong with these sources that makes the article fail WP:CORP. Personal dismay at this industry is not a reason for deletion. --SecondSight 22:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:CORP, WP:SPAM, and the desperate grasping for sources. Let 'em take their walled garden elsewhere. --Calton | Talk 07:33, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV ladden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when Loaded is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden". Let me guess here... you believe Loaded, for instance, is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo Talk 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speaking of desperate grasping: if you're going to attempt to stuff words into my mouth, try to be at least semi-coherent when you do so, so it's at least halfway credible. The single-purpose editors who were piling up the bricks for this walled garden are who I mean, obviously, like DutchSeduction (talk · contribs), SecondSight (talk · contribs), Mooft (talk · contribs), and one of the prime offenders, your old pal WoodenBuddha (talk · contribs) [1].
  • heavily POV ladden [sic] language used in AfD. Point of view? God forbid I should have an opinion in a debate. --Calton | Talk 15:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. However what you should be discussing in this AfD is how the sources make this a "Non-notable corporation" as the nominator claims. Other than one of the editors you listed (obviously SecondSight) none of them are active anymore. Which is what I was referring to. Even worse, one of the editors you listed doesn't even exist! (Mooft (talk · contribs)). Also, WoodenBuddha isn't my "old pal". Oh, and don't claim "single-purpose editor" when I'm not that. I edit to an extremely broad range of articles, in a variety of roles. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Wish the nominator had stated specifically why they believe it is a "Non-notable corporation". You can't reply to the nominator's specific accusations when there are not any! I suspect this is a bad faith nomination with the nominator merely being disruptive. Of course, I would rather that I'm wrong in what I suspect about this. So I'm looking forward for a more detailed explaination from the nominator. Mathmo Talk 21:10, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, certainly. The article contains no assertion of notability - the size of the corporation is not discussed, and it's relevance to an encyclopedia is dubious. I also note that you are stalking me. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
See SecondSight's comments for why it has notability. Secondly since when is the "size" required for an article to be notable?! (and I'll add that, "size" is a very vague term that can have many many possible meanings) As for you accusing me of stalking, this is not the place to re-hash out your accusations and my responses. For that, go here: User_talk:Mathmo#WP:STALK. I'll also recommend that you read No personal attacks. Mathmo Talk 11:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete cruftvertisement, non-notable, based on trivial media coverage of an unencyclopedic topic. Pete.Hurd 04:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Unencyclopedic topic?! Please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo Talk 11:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete: Seems to be a spam article. The only external source is YouTube, and that's not a reliable source. Furthermore, the YouTube link does not seem to be a "documentary", but rather an advertisement piece. (Either that, or it's a really, really favorable documentary.) It was also uploaded by this organization, so it's not a true third party link (just more material created by this organization.) For those reasons, it's non-notable. .V. [Talk|Email] 18:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment, there were many more sources mentioned than just Titan Tv. Secondly you are wrong in saying it was on YouTube, it is on Google Videos. Mathmo Talk 23:52, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I guess I was thinking Google Video but put down YouTube. Anyway, the other sources are from this company. What we need are reliable, third-party sources. There are none, so there's no indication of notability. .V. [Talk|Email] 03:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
        • If the company did put the Titan TV segment up on Google Video, it doesn't change the fact that the segment was made by a third party. Hence, it is an independent source. Do you think they fabricated the video entirely and are lying that it was ever a segment on TV? Or are you arguing that the company edited the segment or something to make themselves look better? Also, the article has two more sources. The fact that independent links aren't available to these sources doesn't mean that the sources don't exist or that they are not independent. Sources don't even need links anyway (many books are cited in wikipedia that don't have the whole contents linked to online). We could just cite the sources, and remove the links to their text on the company's website if that would make you happier. --SecondSight 06:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
          • Is there any proof at all this video was made by a third party? It doesn't have any logo on it that says "Titan TV", and the only source that says this is from Titan TV is Badboy Lifestyle. Also, this is not a documentary. This is a promotional piece. It shows the corporation talking about their infallible method, it talks about being a "player", it shows the price of the seminars, and then it closes with an advertisement screen: "Seduce any girl - badboylifestyle.com". This is an infomercial. If you were to remove the links and rather just cite the articles, it would still not fix the problem that the articles are unverified. Several of the sources are from Badboy, and two links are the same video. This hardly meets WP:CORP. .V. [Talk|Email] 15:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
              • If you watch the segment all the way through, Titan TV's logo comes up. This is obviously an evening TV segment, maybe news. I don't think it's strange that it shows the website of the company. --SecondSight 06:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Verifiable and notable. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete unless reliably sourced from third party publications per this search. Also, none of the sources in the article are entirely third party. Addhoc 19:39, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep essentially per SecondSight. I nominated this for deletion in the ill-conceived first go, but my views have changed. As SecondSight points out, there is plenty of third-party coverage with the full-text available at the website [2] [3] [4] Loaded, Playboy, and Cosmo are all well-established magazines that are clearly reliable sources, even if not in the same league as the NY Times, for example. The coverage is extensive, especially in the first two, so Badboy meets CORP (no one has really offered an explanation for why these should be disregarded).--Kchase T 13:19, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment the key phrase here is "at the web site". In my view, sources from sites other than Badboy Lifestyle are required. Addhoc 13:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    • I didn't understand that criticism at first, but now I get it and think it's fair. That said, the piece from Loaded includes a scan of the article. That's pretty strong evidence that the article actually was published as it's found on Badboy's website.--Kchase T 13:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete (unless the truly unexpected happens and genuinely reliable sources, multiple in number, happen to be found) per nom and Calton. This is part of a walled garden of seduction vanispamcruftisement, no two ways about it. It has no place in an encyclopedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete with salt. No notability. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:04, 11 February 2007 (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.