Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Last minute resistance

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 Delete.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last minute resistance

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP is not a seduction community jargon hand book.--Peta 00:44, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mystery Method, which survived AfD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method. Not sufficiently notable for its own article. Accurizer 00:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --Terence Ong 01:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Delete, someone can later replace contents with a redirect to Mystery Method, as its not enough for its own article. Its delete because I'd rather see it deleted than 'kept' due redir/del not forming consensus. Kevin_b_er 01:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as NN neologism —Mets501^talk 03:08, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete V. Joe 03:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Part of the walled garden the so-called "Seduction Community" has been building on Wikipedia over the last several months. As a sample, see {{Notable Members of The Seduction Community}}, List of commercial seduction teachers, and the contributions list of this particular editor. --Calton | Talk 04:33, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

*Delete per above, merge/redirect to Mystery method since it surved AfD. Someone shoudl go through and AfD a lot of these articles (one or two of them is arguably notable like Mystery but and community itself but thats about it). JoshuaZ 04:49, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable. Inner Earth 08:34, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. "Seduction Community" indeed. Piffle. -- GWO
• Delete and root out all of this stuff. Smerdis of Tlön 14:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Mystery Method, otherwise Delete. Indeed, it is not notable enough to have its own article per nom. -- ReyBrujo 15:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Accurizer Computerjoe's talk 16:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Neologism only in use in Mystery Method. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -999 23:39, 8 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.