Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-slut defense


 * 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. Tone 12:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Anti-slut defense

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails the general notability guideline which requires significant coverage in third party reliable sources Independent of the subject, whereas it is currently based on a primary source. The second source (by Denes) is about the book The Mystery Method and is only tangentially related to this topic. Currently all the other information I can find on it is self-published or promotional in nature. Should either be deleted or merged into pick-up artist or The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed as it currently does not meet the minimum requirements for articles-- Cailil  talk 19:16, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Seems like a non-notable neologism, based on unreliable & primary sources. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into Mystery Method, per WP:NEO. Article seems to be based on a primary source. Second source is paywalled and could not verify that the topic is actually mentioned there. If anyone has access to it, please post relevant content to discussion here. Doesn't seem to be a common enough term to warrant an article at this time. Kaldari (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * keep&mdash;ick! these people are icky. however that's not the issue. first of all, the find sources template books link shows 5 books besides the authors which discuss the term.  admittedly, most of them are just admiringly noting it, but this one has some material that's encyclopedic and could go into the article.  also, there's at least one other scholarly paper besides the one cited in the article (@Kaldari: which does in fact talk about it) that talks about it, admittedly not at length, but some.  that being said, i see no reason to oppose a merge and redirect, which could have been done by ordinary editing rather than bringing it here and forcing me to look through those slimy pickup artist books.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I saw these refs myself alf.laylah.wa.laylah before I opened the AFD, however a thesis is still self-published (until it gets turned into a book) and the other book contains a trivial mention. However IMHO these don't meet WP:GNG or WP:NRVE-- Cailil  talk 20:08, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * that's an interesting point about theses, which i haven't thought about before. i would argue that a thesis is not self-published once it's approved by its committee and accepted by the university as part of the requirements for granting the degree (as this one has been).  the next step after that is to deposit a copy in the university's library, which is clearly a publication of the thesis. this whole vetting process is outside the control of the author, which seems to preclude it being self-publishing.  it's always acceptable to cite theses in academic papers and books, so probably it should be at wp too. anyway, like i said, i don't think this is any kind of obvious case, and we just disagree on something that reasonable editors can disagree on.  maybe we don't even disagree so much since you propose merging as acceptable, and that's fine with me too.  it's not necessary to get consensus at an afd before merging, though.  it's super easy to just merge and replace an article like this with a redirect.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ALWL, PhD theses are generally considered reliable sources; master's and undergraduate theses are not. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. The WSIF paper doesn't give significant coverage to this idea as opposed to the general methodology and ideology of "pick-up artists," and the other source is of course primary. Delete per Articles for deletion/Concepts in the seduction community (2nd nomination), or failing consensus for that, redirect to The Mystery Method per Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (5th nomination). –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Neologism of sorts which is not notable, and if it were, perhaps it would fit better at Wiktionary or... nowhere.   coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  08:28, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per ItsZippy. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:52, 22 October 2011 (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.