Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics

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. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 21:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Article has been subsequently restored now that sources were found for the article (as that was the issue that was judged on this AFD). This AFD does not make the article qualify for speedy G4 deletion. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 22:23, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please take new arguements to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), not reopen this one. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Real Social Dynamics

Real Social Dynamics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Fails to establish notability according to WP:CORP. Luke! 10:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. The links it provides are either owned owned by the company or have nothing to do with it. This a blatant advertisement and these rats linked to their own website twice in the intro. Shaundakulbara 09:02, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, rats?! Do remember WP:CIVIL, also there is not a link to the RSD website twice in the intro. There is only one, at the same time while it is being mentioned. Which is completely valid to be used there in that manner, even adds to the article as opposed to being without it. So far as notability and verifiable sources go, did you read the whole article before proposing it for deletion? Or is the The Times not good enough for you? Here is one quote from a Times article, "Tyler Durden (according to Strauss and several hundred websites) is one of the most polished PUAs in the world, with routines for every occasion. No woman, allegedly, can resist him."Mathmo ^Talk 01:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per Shaundakulbara. THE KING 10:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Very Strong Keep, one of the most famous companies in this area. I'd agree it does need to be improved somewhat, but I won't just say that. I'm going to start tidying it up a little bit right now. Mathmo ^Talk 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Minor Comment, it isn't quite as bad as I thought it might be now I've read through the article again. Mainly just isn't written in the style you would want of a FA. But the actual content in the article isn't so bad. I'm adding the article to my watchlist now, I think if a watch isn't kept over it the quality of the article would fall. Or so it would seem from the history of it perhaps. Mathmo ^Talk 01:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, as per nom. Those defending this are also hard at work defending PickUp 101, which is only slightly more notable. I haven't nominated it for deletion yet, but it might be best. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 12:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked, what is this that I see... not stalking I'll pressume?!?! Mathmo ^Talk 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• • Comment. The actions elsewhere of those defending this page have no bearing on whether this page should be deleted or not. --SecondSight 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The article itself contains verifiable citations of "multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself". As mentioned earlier, there is the citation from The Times (a national newspaper), which mentions 'Tyler Durden' and 'Papa' by name. [1] They are also notorious and frequently-mentioned in the former Thundercat's Seduction Lair blog, which is also well-known within the community [2] [3] [4] [5]. If you are unhappy with the quality of the article, rewrite it or flag it for rewriting. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 13:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  Those reasons Sasuke Sarutobi puts forth are all good reasons why it should be kept, and shows just one aspect of why I'm so surprised this is on AfD. Mathmo ^Talk 13:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  One newspaper reference and a set of blog references don't constitute evidence of notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  When that newspaper reference is The Times and in it The Times are even mentioning themself that he is claimed to be one of the great in the world then it certainly has done well in establishing notability. This is not Eketahuna's local rag that we are talking about here.... Mathmo ^Talk 14:12, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  One refernce is one reference; the identity of the newspaper is irrelevant (even if the Times weren't just a disguised tabloid nowadays). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

  It is not the only reference, and the standard of the newpaper is not "irrelevant". Imagine for a moment an article which only had an article from Waikikamukau's paper as a reference and nothing else could be found. Then I'd have a chuckle over it, and then delete it. I wouldn't be so hasty and on automatic if it was based on an article in The Economist for instance. Besides, there is more to refences than what is just under the sub heading "references". There are references contained inside the main text of the article, and the references themselves contain references. Such as The Times article itself mentioning how there are literally (in their words) "hundreds" of websites to do with Tyler Durden. Mathmo ^Talk 14:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This seems like a frivolous AFD. The article has three sources, one of which is linked to for easy access, and one of which is a New York Times bestselling book. The book establishes notability (though it may not be the best source for verifiable information on this subject), and the Times article provides verifiability (notwithstanding the personal opinion of some editors on the quality of the Times). All this being said, the article is currently not written from a neutral point of view and needs to be rewritten; it sounds too promotional. The article should have been flagged with a POV tag, not an AFD. Part of the problem is that people affiliated with the company have often engaged in vanity-type whitewashing of the article. --SecondSight 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment It is difficult to establish notability of entities within the seduction community, as its existence within the World Wide Web is mainly blogs, commercial sites and discussion boards. It is perfectly feasible that entities are notable within their community, but little-known outside. What is more, the youth and nature of the seduction community itself, as well as the aims of its members, mean that there are few independent written publications in the same way that there are for many other such communities.

Nonetheless, there will be ways to measure notability. I will accept that Real Social Dynamics and its founders, Tyler Durden and Papa, are not the direct subject of The Times article cited. However, they are well-known in the seduction community, so I think this debate should have to come to some other criteria for notability in the seduction community. Do not think that I'm trying to change the rules just so that what should be a non-notable article can stay; I believe that the rules do not adequately support as distinct a sub-culture as the seduction community, and that subjects that are notable enough within this sub-culture that they should have a presence here are being knocked aside.

My first proposition would be the mention of a person or entity within Neil Strauss' book The Game. I've not yet read the book myself, but from what I know of it, it appears to be an authoritative work on the English-speaking seduction community. I shall purchase a copy at my first opportunity.

-- Sasuke Sarutobi 22:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Neil Strauss' book is a work of fiction. Some of the characters are "composite characters" and timelines are crunched down to make the book more readable. It is listed as "Fiction", as opposed to "Biography" for those reasons, and is not a useable source for a wiki entry beyond than to say "Tyler and Papa were characters of the actual book." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.209.184.127 (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

The beginning of the book states that:

The number 'some' you were talking about is three. Identities have of course been changed, as this is a controversial work. As for you noting that 'it is listed as "Fiction", as opposed to "Biography"'; I direct you to the Amazon.com entry and Amazon.co.uk entry for the book. Scrolling to near the bottom of the page will find the book listed, not under fiction, but 'biographies & memoirs', 'nonfiction', even 'social studies'. -- Sasuke Sarutobi 10:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Interesting. I found the book in the Fiction section. I suppose I'm somewhat skeptical of Strauss' perspective as shortly after releasing his book he proceeded to start a competing business (www.only375.com) charging $3,750 for his DVD set. When I participate in the editing of a wiki, my intentions are to keep it as neutral and accurate as possible. If one business decides to write a slander piece against another, even if in a "legitimate book", it's not really what I'm looking for as far as a base for the article. If this article is to be re-written it should be based on RSD's ideas and philosophies.

Wouldn't go so far as to call it a work of slander. I believe the critical aspects of them has been dealt by putting it into a seperate sub section called "Criticism". On the flip side, another point to consider is that Mystery wasn't exactly portrayed overly favourably in the book by Neil Strauss. Yet Mystery has done very well from the publishing of the book and they both still remain good friends of each other. Likewise I'd suggest that everybody who was mentioned did better of than if they hadn't been mentioned regardless of if they were portrayed favourably or not. Mathmo ^Talk 03:16, 31 January 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.