Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PickUp 101
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 no consensus. --Coredesat 21:35, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] PickUp 101
Non-notable corporation - fails WP:CORP Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, per nom. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. When this AFD began, the article had two sources, one USA Today and the other in San Francisco Magazine. Furthermore, the article mentioned that the company was profiled in CNBC's On the Money. Yet for some strange reason, the page was still put up for deletion, with only a vague allegation that it is "non-notable" per WP:CORP. Neither of the two voters for deletion seem to feel any obligation to explain why the page fails WP:CORP, or what is wrong with the sources that article has which do establish notability. In case anyone has any doubt as to the notability of the article, I just added a link to the On the Money segment, and I added another news source[1]. --SecondSight 21:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
- The first reference is to a general "lifestyle" (i.e., glossy puff) article which mentions this company among a number of others. The second is to a similar (if more nauseating) article in a local magazine, though it does concentrate on this company. The third (by the PR Manager of a local student magazine) is the same sort of thing, more general than the second, but focussing more on this company than the first.
- So the two references that focus more on this company are local mags, and the national newspaper mentions it as one among many. I'm not impressed; others may be. (Oh, the Cable television programme; isn't it more a mark of notability not to be mentioned by at least one of these? There are so many of them, and so little of real significance for them to talk about.) --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment. The USA Today article mentions other companies, but it is clearly about PickUp 101 primarily. It has a sidebar with advice from them, and only them. It describes one of their workshops, not the workshops of other companies. It even has a picture of the founder of the company. This is an article in a national publication, and clearly establishes notability of the subject. As for the other sources, WP:RS does not exclude local magazines nor student magazines. (WP:CORP currently excludes student publications, but the policy is still under development and this exclusion is controversial if you read the talk page. Even if the student published article was excluded in establishing notability, the page still has enough sources, and WP:CORP still says that student publications can be used as sources.) Terms like "glossy puff" and "nauseating article in a local magazine" are merely your personal characterizations of the sources. As for the news segment, just because you don't like those programs doesn't mean that it doesn't add to the notability of the subject. --SecondSight 03:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not referring to guidelines like WP:CORP, but to common sense. And none of the sources was a news item; they're all "features" (and some are ill-disguised plugs; I wonder if the company advertises in any of the publications?). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The USA Today article mentions other companies, but it is clearly about PickUp 101 primarily. It has a sidebar with advice from them, and only them. It describes one of their workshops, not the workshops of other companies. It even has a picture of the founder of the company. This is an article in a national publication, and clearly establishes notability of the subject. As for the other sources, WP:RS does not exclude local magazines nor student magazines. (WP:CORP currently excludes student publications, but the policy is still under development and this exclusion is controversial if you read the talk page. Even if the student published article was excluded in establishing notability, the page still has enough sources, and WP:CORP still says that student publications can be used as sources.) Terms like "glossy puff" and "nauseating article in a local magazine" are merely your personal characterizations of the sources. As for the news segment, just because you don't like those programs doesn't mean that it doesn't add to the notability of the subject. --SecondSight 03:58, 5 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. This article has multiple independent sources. Hence, it passes WP:CORP. Because the sources are independent, your walled garden doesn't apply. --SecondSight 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV laden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when USA Today is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden", let me guess you believe USA Today for instance is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo Talk 11:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out to you, the
News McNuggetsUSA Today mention, no matter how you spin it, isn't about the company, it's about the phenomenon. - I can't believe the heavily POV ladden [sic] language used in AfD. As opposed to the grasping at straws, aggressive attacks, and vigorous handwaving that some people are indulging in. And God forbid I should have an actual point of view in a debate. --Calton | Talk 15:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Did I forbid you from a POV? Course not, humans by their very nature will have one. At least you are now finally getting down to the point of what this AfD ought to be about. The sources themself. Naturally each of the sources mention PUA in general because the whole concept is completely foreign to most people. Thus the mention of pick up in needed for the context. However... all of these references mentioned start of by mentioning PickUp101/Lance Mason first and have them as the focus of the article. The mention of others in no way makes this less of a source for this article. Mathmo Talk 20:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- As has already been pointed out to you, the
- Comment, at times I can't believe the heavily POV laden language used in AfD by those against this subject. Grasping for sources when USA Today is mentioned?!?! And then saying this is a "walled garden", let me guess you believe USA Today for instance is in on all of this?! Yeah right. Mathmo Talk 11:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. This article has multiple independent sources. Hence, it passes WP:CORP. Because the sources are independent, your walled garden doesn't apply. --SecondSight 07:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Strong Keep, the article has many sources from range of places. Print media / online / radio / tv / etc... As mentioned before these are USA Today, Playboy Radio, San Francisco Magazine, and Xpress (plus yet more etc...). All of which has PickUp101/Lance Mason as a main focus of them. This combination easily passes what is required for WP:CORP. Mathmo Talk 21:19, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, passes WP:CORP as noted above. And since PickUp 101's approach differs significantly from that of seduction teachers such as Ross Jeffries, it may be of interest to those investigating the topic. Verdant C 01:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- delete cruftvertisement, non-notable, based on trivial media coverage of an unencyclopedic topic. I don't see how this is supposed to pass WP:CORP, despite the above. Pete.Hurd 04:46, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic topic"?! Please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo Talk 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. Please explain how a company covered in multiple independent sources, including national news and TV, isn't notable. --SecondSight 01:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
- "Unencyclopedic topic"?! Please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo Talk 12:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep cited sources don't seem trivial which may or may not show some measure of notability--Hu12 07:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These sources aren't about PickUp 101, they are about the phenomenon of the "seduction community" and "seduction training". If the latest dance fad is salsa, how many salsa studios do we really need in Wikipedia? They teach the same dance. --Brianyoumans 07:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- They are about PickUp 101, however that means they are at the same time about the seduction community. The various people do often teach different ideas from each other. Plus I'd imagine various salsa studios do exist on wikipedia. Not that it has much relevance to this anyway. Mathmo Talk 07:48, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Verifiable and notable, per SecondSight. --Ryan Delaney talk 16:31, 9 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.
