Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carlos Xuma


 * 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. WP:BIO and WP:RS are explicit, Our inclusion threashold is the existance of independant non-trivial secondary sources that discuss the subject. Appearing on TV does not make you notable if you are not discussing youreself in a non-trivial way and there are no secondary sourcing about you. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Carlos Xuma

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

Delete - there do not appear to be independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person, thus he fails WP:BIO. Otto4711 (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Article is an ad for its subject. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:07, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, been on TV and radio many times. But I won't disagree however the article needs be heavily pruned, but that is no reason for deletion. Mathmo Talk 01:16, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been on TV and radio many times. Just being on TV doesn't make me notable and it doesn't make this guy notable either. The standard of notability is not "has been on TV and the radio." It is being the subject of independent reliable sources that are substantively about the person. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, "just being on TV" doesn't make someone notable. But a TV program by a news organization can be an independent reliable source, and coverage in a TV segment can by "substantively about" a person. If you are the subject of an interview by a TV news source that discusses your activities, then I would argue that you are notable on Wikipedia. So is Xuma (see my vote for keep below). --SecondSight (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:49, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to your abject failure of civility and your appalling lack of assumption of good faith, not to mention your attempt to color this nomination with falsehoods. I am not "attacking" anything. I am reviewing these articles and searching for sources that substantiate them before nomination. I have not, for example, nominated nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious bias in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of seduction community, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to ownership issues and blinding you to the requirements for Wikipedia articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:40, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith as my first instinct, however when I find obvious apparent reason to no longer assume the best of a person in that there is an innocent explanation then it would be wrong for me to carry on being blind to what is happening. While you have yet to nominate all the articles for deletion, the sheer number of them and the continually increasing number of them you have nominated as time goes by, makes the question of if you are nominating every single article a worthy point to consider. Mathmo Talk 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it's not, because as I have explained repeatedly I am not nominating every article for deletion. Saying that I am or suggesting that I plan to is nothing more than a petty deception. And even if it were my insidious plan to nominate them all for deletion, unless you have evidence that I am acting in bad faith in making the nominations whether they all get AFDed or not is irrelevant. Each article must stand or fall on its own and the fact that a series of similar articles are all nominated does not excuse the individual articles from meeting our standards. There have still been no reliable sources presented that are substantively about this person. By the way, I note that you're responding to a comment I made to Sedcom. You accused me of sockpuppeting in another AFD. Should I be asking for a checkuser on you now? Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * While I'm glad that you're not nominating every article for deletion, you really need to work on your civility. Tone it down a few notches. Alansohn (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Unreal. You tell the person being subjected to repeated acts of incivility to be more civil. Is this Crazy Backwards Day or something? Otto4711 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Xuma's frequent appearances as an expert on the field establish his notability. This is an article that needs drastic improvement, but that is never a valid argument for deletion. I would have replied to our nominator's argument re TV appearances with the customary inapplicability of WP:WAX, but in this case I look forward to seeing the Otto4711 article. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The "been on TV" argument is not WP:WAX. It is a statement that having appeared on television, even having appeared a bunch of times on television, does not, per WP:N, establish notability.
 * When a person is being interviewed on TV then that appearance is naturally about that person, just the same as when a journalist interviews a person and the article gets published. Exactly the same, the only difference is the medium: TV or Newspaper. Mathmo Talk 05:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Um, actually no. Not everyone who is quoted in a news story is the subject of that news story. Example: who is the subject of this story? Is it Dana Perino? No? Oh, I guess your "whoever's being interviewed is the subject" theory has been exploded then. Otto4711 (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree most certainly with everything stated by and  in their delete rationales. Cirt (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with most of the criticisms of the article, and I disagree that the critics are acting in bad faith. I just wish they would start by suggesting improvements on the talk page, rather than hitting the AFD button. In this case, criticisms of the article notwithstanding, there actually are reliable sources available on this subject. Five minutes of Googling revealed a mention of Xuma in this news article; it requires a library card # to access, but the relevant text is here:

The wingman phenomenon is not new, but it is garnering more attention than ever before. The media - particularly the online media so beloved by twenty-somethings - are rife with wingman news.

Carlos Xuma, a contributor to the online newsletter "Dating Dynamics," says wingmen have four major duties. Here you go:


 * Wingmen get you out of the house. They motivate you to get dressed, get moving and put yourself in a position where you can meet other single people. Wingmen are generally more skilled at the art of the pick-up, so they become Yoda to your Skywalker.


 * Wingmen help ingratiate you with a group of people. Apparently, it looks less desperate if two people approach a group instead of one.


 * Wingmen capture the attention of the person (or people) you emphatically do not want to attract. The wingman keeps this "no-go" busy for the evening so you can focus your attention on the object of your desire.


 * Wingmen validate you. In other words, he or she talks about your fabulous sense of humor, your work ethic or anything else that will get you points with the group.


 * Additionally, I found a video from ABC News about Xuma that discusses Xuma's activities and interviews him. ABC News is an independent reliable source, and the coverage is substantively about Xuma. Since there are multiple independent reliable sources available on this subject, the article should not be deleted, but rather aggressively pruned down and re-written. --SecondSight (talk) 07:15, 14 November 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.