Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy, Nick

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. - Philippe 19:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Savoy, Nick

Savoy, Nick (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Dating coach and pickup artist. Looks very much like self-promotion. Is he notable? See also Love Systems. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:14, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Is he notable? R u kidding me? He is Savoy. He owns the biggest Pick up company in the world. People from all over the world come to attend his seminars. How do you suggest deletion when you don't even know who Savoy is? I reccomend do some research and homework on your own before you jump to delete other people's pages.Truthfullmee (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)Truthfullmee
  • There are a ton of external sources about Savoy that are listed on the page itself. The Globe and Mail is Canada's national newspaper. He's on Fox News. Interviewed by national CBS radio. He was a consultant to the Pickup Artist show (check IMDB). They are also on www.lovesystems.com/media.Camera123456 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Savoy has a lot of enemies in the "pickup community", maybe some of them are involved in trying to get him off of wikipedia?Camera123456 (talk) 00:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
      • A brief quote in a newspaper or working for a television show is not a sign of notability. The longest source, the Brink Magazine interview, is in a barely-known expat rag which reaches a readership of maybe a few thousand even being given away for free; the Hong Kong Audit Bureau of Circulations doesn't even bother with them. Accusing regular editors of being involved in a conspiracy theory is a laughable sign of desperation. cab (talk) 01:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
        • And what will you call to the circulation Fox News and CBS Radio? Further notability does not come only from media publishing a page on something. You have to take into account his position in the pick up community. Go and read what independent sites like Fast Seductiontalk about him. Now you can laugh as much as you want but on your self.Truthfullmee (talk) 02:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Truthfullmee
  • Comment. If kept, the article needs to be retitled in order to be consistent with Wiki naming conventions. 23skidoo (talk) 02:54, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear are you objecting to plain use of Savoy, Nick. I guess I do see your point there. So it can be: Savoy, (pick up artist)?Truthfullmee (talk)
      • If kept the name would be "Nick Savoy", not "Savoy, Nick" per naming conventions. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Accusations? What? That seems an overreaction to what I said. Let's keep the temperature down here. If the page needs to be renamed, it needs to be renamed. It's not a big deal. But when you compare Savoy to the other notable members of the seduction community, guys like Carlos Xuma, and argue that Savoy shouldn't be there, that's just kind of silly. And he is talked about on other Wiki pages like Mystery Method.
I also noticed that two years ago in the "prominent members of the seduction community page" it seemed to be agreed by people who were talking about it then that Savoy should be added - check out this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seduction_community —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the page should be kept, but I agree that the name should be changed. I think he tends to go by the name "Savoy" anyway, not Nick Savoy. Camera123456 (talk) 00:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note the contribution history of those voting to keep! -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 18:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I wonder if you evaluate your comments before posting? What has our contribution history to do with what is right and what should be done? If I remember correctly Wikipidea has content for everyone to read whether they post or not. And so when a reader has an opinion on something that matters to them you have to take it into consideration and not blow it off because they don't make living of Wikipedia like you do. Forgive me for I am not interested to post on Barbie dolls and Hitler's moustache but I do want to see a page for Savoy for he helped me with dating issues and he deserves a page here. And so I post. However I do agree that the page should be renamed.Truthfullmee (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I will ask again, since I just keep getting sarcastic comments when I ask you publicly. What, precisely, is wrong with my contribution history? I've posted on a variety of topics in the seduction community and outside. I made extensive additions and improvements to the Mystery Method page (as 72.whatever). Most of the time I just read. I don't add stuff gratuitously. I don't go onto every page changing a comma so I can feel important. I make additions when I have something meaningful to ad. So I will ask again, politely: what is wrong with my contributioon history?Camera123456 (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment - the contribution history is relevant as an indication that users may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies. Further evidence of same is lack of knowledge of naming conventions, and repeated failure to sign postings here. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Walled garden, all supposed references actually go to the love systems web site. No convincing claim of third-party notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Keep That's because that's there they are collected in one place. Do you think they're fake? That seems a bit extreme but I never thought of that. I'm the one who put them there; what would you suggest I do instead? I went to the Globe and Mail site (for example) and they don't have a searchable linkable archive of articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
      • I love how you guys jump to conclusions. Glad you'r not real life investigators! Now agreed the media is sitting at Love Systems website but they are articles from Fox and CBS. So it does not matter where they sit what matters is that they are from reputed news agencies which are not owned by Savoy or Love Systems hence from a third party. I do not have time to go to their site or call them and get written testimonies from them to pacify you but you are welcome to do so. But PLEASE YOU GUYS PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE EVALUATE YOUR COMMENTS BEFORE POSTING! See if it makes any sense. Truthfullmee (talk)
  • Keep I'm a member of the seduction community and felt like I should log in here and say something. Within our community (which is sizable - just look at The Game on the bestseller list, the various international television shows devoted to the subject, etc.) Savoy is a major figure, having been involved in two of the biggest seduction companies. Not only that, but he literally wrote the book on seduction, Magic Bullets. Whether you're a fan or not, you can't argue against his notability within his field. And his interviews in major magazines and media companies? Come on, how can you deny those? And yeah, of course they're also posted on his site; that's how self-promotion works. Bixolon (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:20, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. The decision to keep or delete is based on policies, not on how many people like or don't like an article. Those who want to keep this article should read WP:Notability (people), then go provide references to reliable sources. No amount of passion on this page will affect the outcome. The only way to keep this article is to provide good references. So apply your passion for this subject to reading our policies, then finding the references. If you provide good references, then most likely all the Delete votes will change to Keep because our decisions are based on policy. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep Wow. I feel like I'm trying to join an elitist clique. Anyway, your website, your rules I guess. Can someone tell me SPECIFICALLY 1) what is wrong with the current notability references, 2) what is wrong when you type "Savoy PUA" in google, and 3) how and why are people like Carlos Xuma more "notable" than the PRESIDENT OF MYSTERY METHOD?Camera123456 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. You'll note how people who know very little about a TV series, book series, or local government tend to, out of courtesy, keep right out of arguments about which parts are important. I wrote large chunks or the original Seduction Community article, and spent a lot of time both trying to keep spammers from adding pointless pages to the pages around it. Nick Savoy runs by far the largest and most media-heavy company in the industry - have you tried Googling for "Mystery Method" recently? As a result, a page about him helps give the fuller picture about what the industry is about. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe the content needs to be changed, but constructive dialog about that is the way forward, rather than howling from the peanut gallery. RHaworth - why don't you get us started in this constructive dialog? WoodenBuddha (talk)
  • I believe that you are probably not one of the endless sockpuppets of Camera123456. What does "howling from the peanut gallery" mean? Ain't I started the dialogue by created this AfD? What else did you have in mind? -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete — no non-trivial third-part sources which establish notability have been demonstrated, either on the article on in this discussion. --Haemo (talk) 04:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I can't for the life of me figure out why these sources don't qualify as notable, especially in comparison to other seduction leaders who are far less well-known and whose pages are on here. Even according to the wikipedia guidelines these are notable. But if it helps, Savoy's previously taped episode on the Dr Phil show is airing on Friday, April 11. But I suppose that "doesn't count" either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camera123456 (talk • contribs)


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.