Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie


 * 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. overall consensus to delete as cited policy and/or guidelines by those opposed to deletion did not hold up to scrutiny Nja 247 10:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Alan Roger Currie

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

non-notable subject with only trivial third party coverage. it reads more like advertising than a biography. Theserialcomma (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The subject of the article, Currie, is the one who created it. Not to mention that this person is not notable.  This article should be deleted.--Davidwiz (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Davidwiz is expressing speculation and opinions as fact, which makes his assertions invalid. Same with Theserialcomma.  Alan Roger Currie is a popular and well-respected book author and dating & relationships expert.  He has been interviewed in a number of newspapers and on various radio shows.  He has been quoted in Essence magazine and will soon be featured in Black Enterprise magazine, and these are both noteworthy publications.  Currie should remain included in Wikipedia without question or debate.--Chicago Smooth (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alan should not be deleted because he is famous among many places and people who are not as familiar with him can come on this page and find out more interesting information about him. He is not a minor person because lots of people know him and he also hosts his own talkshow --thekezz (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to delete Alan's page then why not Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, or Zan Perrion? Alan fits in right well with these guys—just with a far different philosophy, I bet you guys didn't even know Alan interviewed Zan Perrion. What sets him apart from almost every "guru" out there is that he advocates complete honesty and straightforward communication. Now, don't you think for the average internet user who types in Alan Roger Currie and/or Mode One would want to get a nutshell of who and what he does? Better yet, have his philosophy connected with the rest of the (mostly) dishonest seduction community. In my book, he is notable. Maybe you guys haven't noticed it yet, he is by far one of the most legit dating and relationship authors out there. And another thing, what defines "notable" too? Just because you haven't heard about him doesn't mean you should delete him off while plenty of people from around the world (not just the US) are hearing and learning from him. By the way, last time I checked, Mr. Currie's name has been rising pretty fast. Did you even see him on The Morning Show with Mike & Juliet? YouTube that up, you'll see. Who knows where his name will be next year, all I know for sure is, it will be more around than before. Let him be, just let him be. --Entirelybe (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * If you're going to delete Alan's page then why not Neil Strauss, David DeAngelo, or Zan Perrion? Fine idea! When can we start? --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alan Roger Currie, the author of the book Mode One - Let the women know what your REALLY thinking has been a great benefit to my interactions with the opposite sex ( as he has done with plenty of other men ). His book is well known and the author deserves this credit. As much as other famous authors of dating books do. point. --arvindautar (talk) 0:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete - this AFD needs more SPAs and COIs. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:14, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR criteria 1. Anyone who is familiar with the Attraction & Seduction Community or the Dating and Relationships genre of book authors and experts knows who Alan Roger Currie is; criteria 2. This is probably Currie's most valid criteria; He is well-known internationally for creating "The Four Modes of Verbal Communication";  Most of the dating experts and seduction gurus featured on Wikipedia promote tactics which are misleading or manipulative;  Currie was probably the first dating expert and seduction guru to promote the idea of upfront, straightforward honesty with women []; Currie's Wikipedia page has existed now for probably two or three years. Currie has done nothing but gain even more credibility since the page was originally created. If you delete Currie's Wiki page, then you might as well delete the pages of Tariq Nasheed, Zan Perrion, David DeAngelo, and just about any other 'expert' or 'guru' in the dating and relationships field. If editing is what needs to be done, then that is what should be done. But there is no valid reason for deletion. Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:RS and WP:N before assuming the criteria has been met. i can't speak about the other articles mentioned because i haven't read them, but if they don't pass wikipedia's notability guidelines listed at WP:N, then they could be deleted also. also, please read WP:COI and explain why you claim to be a "close friend" of the article subject, and told another editor to email you at the article subject's "public relations" email address [] Theserialcomma (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Simply put, you cannot have all of these guys on Wikipedia from the infamous Seduction Community and not have Alan Roger Currie on here to provide balance and contrast to these men. Currie is most notable for being against the deceptive, misleading and manipulative tactics that most Seduction Community guys teach and promote.  This is why his presence on here is so important and relevant.  If the Seduction Community guys weren't on here so prominently, then I wouldn't defend Currie's presence on here maybe as much.  Currie's "Mode One" book is revolutionary in the field of approaching, attracting and seducing women.  Currie is known as the "Anti-Manipulation" guy among his fans and loyal followers.  I've followed every editing suggestion that has been recommended to me.  I don't see why this is even still an issue. Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, no, no, no, and no. You cannot use the word 'notable' in the common usage sense and think that is in any way compatible with wikipedia's usage of the word. They don't mean the same thing at all, and WP:N explains wikipedia's use of it. Per wikipedia's definition of notable, it is irrelevant what other articles have or don't have (we don't judge keep or delete one article based on other articles), and it's also irrelevant how the article's subject feels about deception, manipulation, approaching, or attracting (this is not relevant to WP:N, the criterion for an article's inclusion in WP.) This is not a question of whether Currie is good at what he does -- I am sure he is -- but it is a question of WP:N and WP:RS, two strict policies of Wikipedia. Please read them again and then add some responses that address the fact that he is not notable by Wikipedia's standards. Remember, Wikipedia's definition of Notability is a criterion of whether an article should be included or deleted, not about someone's fame, skills, or anything like that. Theserialcomma (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There is more than sufficient evidence in Alan Roger Currie's credentials and background that validly warrants him the title of "notable"; He is the author of two books; He has been featured in newspapers and magazines;  He has been on three or four television talk shows; If you Google his name, he has probably 20+ pages of hits; He has a popular talk radio show where he interviews numerous dating experts and book authors; I mean, the real question is, what about his article and page is NOT notable.  He more than meets the Wikipedia criteria for a notable and relevant entry. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * did you read WP:N? the fact that you mentioned his credentials and background tells me that you haven't read it. it's very important for you to understand that for him to be notable (by WP's standards, not the normal definition of 'notable'), he must have third party coverage per wp:RS. this is non-negotiable and not relevant to his credentials, background, or google hits. See WP:RS and feel free to add the reliable sources to the article. if you add third party, reliable sources to the article, then his notability will be shown. nothing else will work Theserialcomma (talk) 06:32, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Alan Roger Currie is an expert on dating and relationships who has appeared on various radios and Tv Networks. His book ModeOne has become a best seller in the field and has been quoted by many other known figures in this genre. Furthermore, Alan has his own famous radio shows where he hosts interviews with known and very respected authors, therapists, actors, other dating experts. On the contrary, I believe that Alan Roger Currie's wiki page should be more elaborate and updated on a regular basis as he is a very productive personality in his endeavours and projects.--nohadra (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete - hard not to be distracted by the SPAs and possible socks, but this one fails on the actual notability. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  18:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - I hunted around for references outside of press releases in reliable sources, and found none. Most of the first ten or so Google results pages are listings for his books for sale, mentions of podcasts, and things; nothing there establishes notability. To the new editors who are arriving to debate this nomination: please recognize that your personal testimony regarding the effectiveness of the author's methods mean nothing to Wikipedia; we need reliable sources to affirm that the subject meets our notability guidelines. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The coverage (listed in the article), is 4 newspaper and magazine articles, which aren't novels, but neither are they single-paragraph blurbs. That meets Notability. --GRuban (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment they are trivial mentions, as far as i can tell. i don't think that qualifies as significant. Theserialcomma (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * comment this mention in Guatemala's Prensa Libre is by no means trivial [] Chicago Smooth (talk) 16:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * response -- actually, yes it is trivial; the guy's quoted for one whole paragraph. You don't seem to understand the concept of "substantial coverage" here. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  21:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Notability doesn't do a very good job of defining "trivial" (it just says a 1-sentence mention is trivial and a 360 page book isn't), but in my experience at AFD, "trivial" usually means a few sentences, a paragraph, a directory listing. These articles are dedicated to the guy and his books. The Post-Tribune articles aren't on the newspaper's site any more, but here are archives from Highbeam.  Here are two articles from the San Francisco Examiner that are still online.   The newspapers are reliable sources and the articles are not trivial mentions. --GRuban (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * would you consider a few mentions to be substantial coverage? no one is doubting he exists, and has been mentioned. but substantial coverage? most of it is trivial, and beyond that, i don't see any that's substantial. Theserialcomma (talk) 21:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This guy is the most influential expert on direct game.Assanova (talk) 28:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, self-published books, not much media coverage, no reviews of the books in mainstream media. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I make no vote because I'm not the best judge of a source being reliable, but I would urge voting editors to examine the sources honestly rather than react to the "crime" of someone writing their own wikipedia article. Doing so is not forbidden by WP:COI, despite the common belief that it is.  I would also strongly urge User:Chicago Smooth to come clean on being Alan Roger Currie, and to familiarize himself with wikipedia's policy on Conflicts of Interest.  Mc  JEFF  (talk)  01:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * response - I am not Alan Roger Currie, but I have had e-mail exchanges with the author and we've interacted on various blogs and message boards. I've already acknowledged that I am a fan of his and own both of his books.  He is aware of my activities on Wikipedia and he is very much aware of this issue and debate regarding the validity of his page. --Chicago Smooth Talk 20:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I'm not seeing COI being used as a deletion reason, that "warning" seems pretty pointless; indeed, it seems counterproductive in attributing motivation where none is evident. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Self-published books, little media coverage other than self-promotion, etc. WP exists to document notability, not promote it. If the members of the so-called Seduction Community need the advice, let them rent their own webhost and high-five each other there. --Calton | Talk 03:05, 12 August 2009 (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.