Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Badboy Lifestyle

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 of the debate was no consensus/keep. – Will (message me!) 21:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Badboy Lifestyle

In hindsight, the grouped nomination was rash and I sincerely apologize that I stepped on toes. I will be more careful. Chaser T

This page and others is part of the "Seduction Community" (that article left during AfD, but came back via undeletion). Though some of them make assertions to notability, I'm skeptical that any of these people or companies are leaders in their "industry". The non-notability and the slim likelihood that anyone will ever search for these pages leads me to assert that they are advertisements masquerading as articles. *Owen Cook Real Social Dynamics David DeAngelo Ross Jeffries List of commercial seduction teachers Juggler (Seduction Community). Finally, the template on all the pages could probably go if this AfD ends in delete. Erik Von Markovik and Mystery Method might be more appropriately merged into seduction community, if they're really that notable. Indeed, Mystery Method was subject to a prior AfD. --Chaser T 20:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC) Modified Nomination In light of the overwhelming response, I am modifying the nomination to include only Badboy Lifestyle. I can't see how it meets either WP:BIO or WP:CORP. As the notability guidelines are structured, proving someone is not notable is proving a negative, so I'm not going to attempt an offer of proof there.--Chaser T 23:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

With the exception of Owen Cook, which should be merged in to Real Social Dynamics, almost all of these pages list mainstream media recognition. Further more, within the community all are exceptionally well known. You've added a bunch of erroneous AFD notices (all of which point to the same AFD notice, annoyingly enough) and copy and pasted your message on to all of these, creating a lot of trouble for other Wikipedians. Your 'vague skepticism' translates to a lot of work for a bunch of Wikipedians trying their best to keep this corner of Wikipedia non-biased and spam-free. Please try nominating just one page next time, and do your research.

WoodenBuddha 21:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Be more respectful before nominating entire communities for deletion. Just take for example these references for Mysterymethod- [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

He is also doing a series on VH1 starting next fall. You will find similar media for the other PUAs.

STONEDMIT 22:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this somebody's sockpuppet for working just on these articles? This was the first edit. --Chaser T 02:39, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agree with User:WoodenBuddha. Why is deletion being proposed on articles which cite mainstream news sources documenting notability? Furthermore, I object to the fact that the AFDs were put up without any warning or suggestions on how to improve the articles, and that all the AFDs were put up simultaneously, which makes them very hard to defend at the same time. This is an abuse of the deletion process. Merging Erik von Markovik and Mystery Method into Seduction Community makes zero sense, because all three are already long. User:Chaser claims that these pages are not notable, but provides no actual argument why this is the case. He claims that there is a slim likelihood that anyone will search for them, but if he had taken a brief glance at google, he would have found that:

• • "Mystery Method" has 74,200 results
  • "David DeAngelo" has 98,700 while his product "Double your dating" has 553,000
  • "Ross Jeffries" has 53,400 while his product "Speed Seduction" has 58,100
  • "Real Social Dynamics" has 32,700
  • (Juggler and Badboy can't get any revealing results from google because the names are too generic)

Hence, it's just not true that nobody is going to searching for these pages. Skepticism that these people are really leaders of their industry simply demonstrates a lack of research and knowledge of this subject; it's like saying, "I'm skeptical that Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan were leaders of the feminist movement." --SecondSight 22:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Chaser, thanks for waiting on the other AfDs for now. --SecondSight 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The list contains many notable members of the seduction community. Many of whom offer free content which would be off use to the readers. What this list needs now is a description and an evaluation of the individual teachers to reach neutrality.--Seductionreport - Vote put in correct place and formatted correctly, see history--Andeh 22:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC).
• Delete -999 23:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As Chaser points out, the burden of proof is on the article to assert its own notability. Yet the article does so, and it has references from Loaded (UK) magazine, and The West Australian. Now the burden is on those proposing deletion to show that these sources are somehow inadequate. This has not been done; Chaser has not even acknowledged that these citations exist. I think it passes WP:CORP. There are two non-trivial sources cited that are independent of the company itself. There are also more references to the company, but they tend to in European languages I don't speak, so I can't go find them. For example, there was an article in Playboy (Germany). --SecondSight 00:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  Thank you for continuing to dialogue, SecondSight. You seem to be referencing CORP criteria one, which for both companies and services references "multiple non-trivial published works". Loaded (UK) and The West Australian might qualify for a company, but I don't think that's helpful for a company (the article actually indicates it's a trademark) run by a single "seduction guru" (as he's called at Seduction Community). As the deletion precedent indicates, "Small companies are not generally notable." What's more google only gives 4,100 results for someone whose website is inactive. As to WP-BIO, the only argument I could see is from the last criteria, with identical language about published works, but judging from the titles only, they don't help. Loaded's "I Can Make You A Stud!" possibly has the person as the "primary subject" (quoting from the WP-BIO), but "Some Secrets You Should Never Share" indicates nothing of the sort.--Chaser T 02:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

  And now his website is up again. --Chaser T 16:26, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The Seduction Community is unquestionably notable, but not every member and associated thing merits its own article. GassyGuy 02:00, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as GassyGuy, only with "unquestionably" replaced by "questionably" -- GWO
• Delete In agreeance with GassyGuy, not every member/thing associated with a more notable entity needs a page. This can be mentioned on a more main page. --Slyder Pilot^E@ 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep GWO's argument seems to be about the seduction community as a whole - the seduction community is worth documenting, as other wikipedia pages have shown, therefore no matter how 'questionable' it is to GWO, it is notable enough to be documented. Gassyguy's argument that 'not every member/thing associated with a more notable entity needs a page', is fine, but precedent in wikipedia shows exactly that - there are 1000's of porn stars with independent pages on wikipedia, the majority of them stubs, but I see no attempt by users to delete these, as well as pages for individual band members of smaller bands, individual pages for a large majority of internet memes, etc. Badboy's products are becoming increasingly popular in the UK, as well as the US. I also agree with Secondsight, that 'the burden is on those proposing deletion to show that these sources are somehow inadequate'. So far I have not seen this.--Ooblyboo 17:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  User's first edit, registered two minutes before voting.--Chaser T 18:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

  'registered two minutes before voting' - Me? Firstly, I have been registered with Wikipedia since 18 May - I'm pretty sure that you can see that from my profile. Secondly, how does that remotely matter? Be bold and assume goodwill, isn't that the Wikipedia way? That you felt it necessary to raise a (blatantly incorrect) fact about my registration as a response to a fair point damages your argument, not mine. Whether this page is deleted or not, I have added my comment in goodwill.--Ooblyboo 20:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize. I misspoke. The first edit (part of the comment) was two minutes before voting. This account, in fact, has been registered since 18 May: [14]. As to why it matters, see here. It's up to the closing admin.--Chaser T 20:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a lot of the porn articles on here are for nn people, as well as with other examples you offer to some degree, but I draw a different conclusion. I vote delete on everything that doesn't deserve to be here (in my opinion, of course) and hope it goes away. What you're suggesting is, because some of the stuff that isn't notable on its own survives deletion nominations, we should just give up and vote to keep all of it, and with that I cannot agree. GassyGuy 10:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per SecondSight. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-06-16 09:33Z
• Keep per SecondSight. --Zoz (t) 12:33, 17 June 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.