Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real social dynamics

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. Greeves (talk • contribs) 17:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Real social dynamics

Real social dynamics (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article fails WP:CORP in that there seem to be no significant third party sources on its subject. The only source is the organization's website, and the article's primary purpose seems to be advertising Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep This article has several references to credible magazines and news sources. Reference to the company website seems appropriate. Referral to Hitch and other non-supported material was deleted.

Keep There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable. 50k hits on Google. OptimistBen | talk - contribs 05:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep: good article, but need touch ups. Dwilso 06:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete I feel it does not reach notability status, and the claims that hitch was based on the founder's personality I can find no support for on-line. This is yet another seduction technique company as far as I can see. I will note however that I'm not active in that space! BananaFiend (talk) 10:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This article seems to be written like an advertisement, trying to get people to buy their courses. I also see no reliable sources here. STORMTRACKER 94 Go Irish! 13:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nomination. Promotional intent seems obvious, and no notability shown. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. I'd be willing to change my view if reliable sources were included to establish that this is something more than self-promotion. --Russ (talk) 14:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete -- I agree with Smerdis and RussDoug Weller (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete probably speedy; does not appear to be sufficiently different from the last two deletions. Also fails our notability guidelines. --Haemo (talk) 23:34, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, however I would be willing to change my !vote to keep if the company's notability could be verified via a reliable, third-party, published source. --Kralizec! (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
  • delete -some of these "sources" are blogs and bulletin boards. No google news hits for the group except for one from the founders old university's journal.[1] A former Queen’s student has become a world-renowned pickup artist. which mentions it only because he's an alumnus. Neil Strauss did an expose of the seduction community in general, not just this group. Merkin's mum 00:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

comment OptimistBen says "There's a significant amount of coverage in the PUA community, which is where you'd expect it to be notable." But this is not a PickUpArtist wiki, we need notability in reliable sources which is where you'd expect a wikipedia article's subject to be notable.:) Merkin's mum 00:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete Reads like an ad for the company...one would think that if their system is that notable, the article should be about the system rather than the company selling the system. LegoTech·(t)·(c) 00:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The article reads like a spamvertisement to me, and as such, should be deleted on that ground. Further, it was deleted once already, and lacks any significant assertions of wide notability, or even significant niche notability. ALL the citations and most of the further reading elements are self-sourced, and the amount of mention in those few 'further reading' examples is indetermination, meaning it could have just been one of four or five names in a list. ThuranX (talk) 00:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:CORP, per nom. X Marx The Spot (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as a promotional article on a non-notable company Bfigura (talk) 03:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. I compared Google blogs and Google Newsgroups searches (for the entire phrase between quotation marks) and notice that this thing is relatively unknown in newsgroups. Anything I find seems like stuff spilling over from blogs and personal web sites - though there are a limited number of passing references (such as "This after the "Real Social Dynamics" stuff too.", "but I can't bring myself to buy products that are marketed so... I can't choose between 'shamelessly' and 'needily' "). Any google search immediately puts seven sponsored links for RSD (and RSD only) on the page. Come on, all this proves that they are spamming big way. And the only third party sources are (potential) customers complaining on newsgroups. Kill with an axe, I'd say.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Please see the primary and secondary sources that I added to the article. Now it includes newspapers, magazines, DVDs, webpages, and a best-selling book. --Ellmist (talk) 17:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

comment if it's kept, someone might edit it so it accurately reflects what the sources say about the founders. So maybe we should delete it because of eventual WP:BLP concerns, to protect their reputation and feelings.:) Merkin's mum 23:54, 25 April 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.