Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gunwitch

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, articles fails the notability guideline as it does not have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Davewild (talk) 16:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gunwitch

Gunwitch (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Donwhiteman —Preceding comment was added at 11:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC) The only two reliable sources offered amount to trivial coverage: one line mentions in sources about another subject. The article fails WP:N and WP:BIO. Dissolva (talk) 07:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, fancruft w/o significant coverage in reliable sources. <eleland/talkedits> 07:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Pixelface (talk) 16:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, was in the New York Times best seller book "The Game" and is one of the most major figures in the seduction community. There is already another reference there in the article to the magazine article "Lady Killers". Mathmo Talk 08:19, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment The mention in The Game is one line in a 452 page book quoting Ross Jeffries, the mention in the magazine article is also one line, which amounts to trivial coverage under WP:N. Dissolva (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, Anyone in the seduction community can attest to Gunwitch being one of the largest and oldest figures around. Figures with less media coverage and less reputation are included in wikipedia. I have been in the seduction community for 4 years and have heard of Gunwitch more than many of the figures on wikipedia. He is notable on the subject far beyond many in the notable members of the seduction community section. This is why I made the article.Donwhiteman Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gunwitch" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Donwhiteman (talk • contribs) 11:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment Please see the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because other articles exist in the encyclopedia isn't a valid rationale for why this article should exist. Notability as defined in WP:N isn't the same as popularity or importance. Dissolva (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • comment second "keep" !vote struck. Multiple comments are fine, but care must be taken to avoid the appearance of more various support for the article than actually exists. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There is an entire section in The Game describing the video incident and another describing the Gunwitch method, as well as the yes trivial mention by Ross Jeffries.Donwhiteman
    • No, you still don't get to vote twice; not even with sock puppets. <eleland/talkedits> 23:53, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Don't flame or call names ockwick
  • Keep Gunwitch has been a notable figure in the seduction community ever since he came into it, as others noted. Look up the http://www.fastseduction.com/youarenew/ site - fastseduction.com being one of the central sites of the seduction community, a direct off-shoot of alt.seduction.fast newsgroup where the movement began. Gunwitch has his own personal mention there, along with a few other notable figures. His method has directly influenced other methods, such as RazorJack Method, Crablouse Method, and the memes he championed are pervasive in many more. Gunwitch has mentored many seductionists who went on to create their own methods and products, such as Tyler D of Real Social Dynamics. Search Gunwitch on google, and see how many seduction websites reference his materials, many of them as "MUST READ". Any mention of "sexual state" or "daytime pick-ups" in the seduction community will instantly make associations with Gunwitch Method in people's minds. Also, there's many results featuring Gunwitch the seduction teacher as there are referring to the fictional comic book character of the same name! If that's not notable, I don't know what is. ockwick —Preceding comment was added at 01:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC) — ockwick (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Yeah that's right, that was my first comment on Wikipedia. So what? Judge the content, don't start name-calling! ockwick
      • No flaming or name-calling was intended, and I apologize for any offense given. For affairs such as a deletion discussion, which are pretty much votes, the votes of accounts which are brand-new and appear to have registered solely to participate in the discussion are generally discounted. <eleland/talkedits> 03:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
        • Right, I can understand the concern as anyone would be able to create a million accounts and vote in their own favour. Fair enough. What happens when some people who have already contributed are voting against a certain article, possibly for competitive purposes ie removing mentions of competition from Wikipedia? I don't know if that was the case here, I'm just a guy who was helped by Gunwitch's teachings immensely, and when I saw it was flagged for deletion I decided to act to help a man who has helped me and countless others. Had to put my word in! ockwick —Preceding comment was added at 16:39, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
          • Comment Deletion discussions are not a vote, but a discussion to establish concensus if an article deserves inclusion in Wikipedia. Mentions on web sites and unpublished claims of influence do not establish notability or meet the need for reliable sources for a biography of a living person. Dissolva (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
            • So in the age of the Internet, websites don't count? I'm reading those guidelines, and they don't mention that mentions on websites don't count, unless it is self-published. As I said, do a google search and find out all these websites that talk about him, talk about his methods, etc - published by other people who are involved in the seduction community. Before going any further, I suggest that anyone involved in this discussion research the materials a bit, search on fastseduction.com and the other seduction websites, google etc, and evaluate all the available sources and decide for themselves how notable the subject is, rather than just see that the references are only a few published materials and lots of websites and blogs and automatically discount it. Anything else is a farce. ockwick
  • Delete not enough sources to write an encyclopedia article that is neutral, based on verifiable information, etc. --Dragonfiend (talk) 05:43, 21 March 2008 (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.