Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pickup (seduction)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:48, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pickup (seduction)

Unencyclopedic. Vacuum c 15:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete. Vacuum c 15:43, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. If warranted, a section could be added to Seduction, but nothing worth merging here. -- Curps 21:35, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move without Redirect to seduction strategies (whose redlink is dangling from seduction) and Cleanup (heavily!) to include both sexes and to be neutral. Revert {{disambig}} of pickup to point directly to seduction as it once did. Uncle G 22:40, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)
    • Pickup should not point to seduction. I believe that pickup truck is a more popular page. Vacuum c 23:29, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • I wasn't saying that pickup should be Redirected to seduction. You've mis-read the shorthand. I was saying that the {{disambig}} text in pickup, which used to point directly to seduction but which now points to pickup (seduction), should be changed back to what it used to be. Roll the history of pickup back to the first December 19, 2004 change. You'll see what I mean. Uncle G 10:30, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot be made NPOV. Present article has no citations, references, sources, or other indications of accuracy. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:52, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, un-encyclopaedic, POV original research. Megan1967 02:10, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Attempt at a joke I guess. No useful content, nor any prospect of any being added. Andrewa 02:29, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree with Uncle G. Move to seduction strategies, cleanup, and create disambig here. --L33tminion | (talk) 03:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- DCEdwards1966 04:05, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • If completely rewritten, keep. Otherwise, redirect to seduction. -Sean Curtin 06:27, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • While an article on Seduction strategies would be interesting, there is nothing worth keeping in this article. The continuing redlink is more likely to result in a quality article than this. Delete. Rossami (talk) 06:46, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I read the article yesterday. I tried the techniques exactly as suggested last night, and they didn't work at all. I got shot down. In flames. Even though people tell me I look like Brad Pitt. And she was a real hot chick, too. So I question the article's accuracy. No vote yet, will try again tonight and this time I'd better score. Macho man 13:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • User's first edit. Highly questionable vote. Vacuum c 15:32, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: My guess is it's the article's author. If he does follow his own advice, he's unlikely to reproduce. That may not be a bad thing. (;-> No change of vote. Andrewa 20:21, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Unencyclopedic and inappropriate in tone. I agree though that the term "pickup" should be referenced somewhere in relation to seduction. --Onlyemarie 00:23, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Move without redirect to seduction techniques or seduction methods or seduction strategies or Fast Seduction (Ross Jeffries' stuff (or was it called speed seduction?)) or to Alt.seduction.fast (article about the newsgroup). This info has been floating in Internet for ages, not really original research but somewhat notable actually. For extra looney points, write an article about Ray Gordon and his pickup "methods". jni 17:47, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rather poor quality original research. There is plenty of good material on pickups but it is not in this article. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:36, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV, unencyclopedic. Some authors just can't get over the novelty of Wikipedia's ability to temporarily elevate any informative self-publication into apparent peer-reviewed fact. Don't indulge them. We're the peers; let's review this thing into oblivion. - mjb 07:47, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.