Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cockblock (2nd nomination)


 * 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   keep due to improvements to the article since nomination. If there is a desire to merge this elsewhere, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 02:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Cockblock
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems like something that belongs in a pickup-artist guide. It features over-analysis of a very lightweight subject as if it were drawn from a work of satire or that someone just wanted to see how often they could work the word "cockblock" into an article. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, indeed, field-tested and published theory from leading figures in the burgeoning seduction community does constitute most of the sources, as it should. Cockblocks are a common topic in the seduction literature, and a phenomenon encountered by many in the field. What makes a subject "lightweight?" Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - When you take a minor societal phrase and inflate it into a full page of strategy as if it is an Audubon field guide, that's lightweight. The 'burgeoning seduction community?' This is like something out of the Zombie Survival Guide where a similar lightweight subject was fleshed out at great length for entertainment value. The article currently reads as puerile over-expansion on a non-encyclopedic subject. Rob Banzai (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete . (Changed to Weak delete per my comment lower in the discussion) Let's see, for sources we have "Diabolikseduction.com", "thepickupkings.com", and "e-seduce.com/How-to-handle-cockblockers" I'm not seeing any of these as reliable sources, and by the way, Wikipedia is not a seduction manual.  Term exists at Wiktionary, that should be enough. BTW, I see the prior nominations were deletes, can one of you admin types tell if this is significantly different in content?  Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  22:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is totally different than the other cases. By the way, Wikipedia is not a seduction manual, but we can quote them since this is a secondary/tertiary resource. Kitten seems to have a "how-to" feel to it but nobody objects. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Heavily trim and merge to "concepts" or "practices" section of Seduction community. Squidfryerchef (talk) 00:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge) It's a minor term with little if any rigorous research to draw upon for the article. At the moment the article quotes sources' amateur psychology as though it were fact.  Remove that type of content and there is pretty much nothing left. -- SiobhanHansa 00:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Doesn't "amateur" imply that they don't do it as a profession? Mystery et al live on this stuff. They've turned it into an art and science that has taken the world by storm. What could have been done to make it more scientifically rigorous and more of a reliable source – have surveys and such and ask people what's worked for them? Who's going to fund that, when the overwhelming anecdotal evidence is all there, and is already sufficient to operate on? I don't really see a compelling case for deletion, and I think this article is a good example of fulfillment of the purpose we are supposed to serve, which is bringing together knowledge from many reliable primary sources into one place. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * My use of amateur is supposed to imply they are not professional, respected psychologists. The people that are quoted may make money from their claims but their conclusions are not taken particularly seriously outside that circle. And are not rigorously studied within it. -- SiobhanHansa 00:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per Xymmax  « l | Ψrom3th3ăn ™ | l »   (talk) 00:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per SiobhanHansa. RJFJR (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per Xymmax. A non-notable term. Almost all (maybe all) the sources listed in the article do not pass WP:RS. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Changing to Weak Delete or Merge to seduction community. The new version by SecondSight is certainly better but still seems to fall short in terms of WP:N. The two last references are to alternate usages of the term. Two other sources are articles in student newspapers. The first reference only mentions the term once and is not really a discussion of the term but a story to which the term is applicable. The most substantive reference is "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" by Neil Strauss which is cited three times. That is a solid reference, but somehow the overall coverage seems a little thin for establishing notability, even in terms of importance and widespread usage within the seduction community. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, common term used widely outside the seduction community such as wingman. Mathmo Talk 05:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 06:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or relist. Users voting for deletion raised some valid concerns. The article only had one reliable source. To address these concerns, I rewrote the entire article to include multiple sources, and I removed all the blog sources. Some of the new sources are about the term and engage in extensive discussion of it (e.g. types of cockblocking), so it passes WP:NEO. Although some users in this AFD expressed a lack of interest in the minutiae of cockblocking, these minutiae are discussed in reliable sources and consequently includable in this article, now that it has better sources. This article cannot be merged with seduction community, because of its size, and because the term is used outside it (by college students, by political commentators, and as the name of a lesbian dance club). Since the article is completely rewritten with the goal of accommodating the concerns of this AFD, I propose that this AFD be closed. If my rewrite is deemed unsatisfactory, then it should be relisted for a new AFD with a clean slate (since this AFD already contains votes for deletion that do not apply to the current form of the article). --SecondSight (talk) 09:15, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * SecondSight - I think you improved the article greatly and I've adjusted my recommendation. But I take issue with the use of student newspapers (or any newspaper using its journalists' opinions rather than reporting on research) as the source for "reasons for".  This is still the same amateur psychology as the blogs exhibited.  The disambiguation issues are minor passing mentions and without those sections it's just about how the phrase is used within the seduction community. -- SiobhanHansa 11:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that student newspapers aren't the highest quality sources around, but they still seem to qualify as reliable sources. Student newspapers have editorial boards. WP:RS requires that the authors of reliable sources "are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." Surely a college student writing for a college publication is "trustworthy or authoritative" in relation to the usage of the term "cockblock" among college students. This article doesn't have the best reliable sources in the world, but it has reliable sources. Are there any guidelines or precedents for using college newspaper sources? --SecondSight (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree they're probably fairly authoritative in relation to the usage of the term but that's not what they're being used to support. They're being used to support why cockblocking happens - and that's psychology (or sociology) and I'd hazard fairly sophisticated psychology at that. I don't think any journalist's view - in the absence of other qualifications - would be appropriate for that.  If they were quoting experts it would be a different matter but they appear to be writing their own opinions.  -- SiobhanHansa 00:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to seduction community or keep. Surely some of the sources in the article are reliable enough to use for a Wikipedia article, and there are plenty of sources primarily about this term making it notable.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 10:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Upgrade vote to "Merge" - Thanks to SecondSight this is much, much better than where it started. Although it still seems overanalyzed this no longer reads like passages from a "how to pick up chicks" book. You've done a great job with improving the tone. Rob Banzai (talk) 12:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per substantive WP:HEY improvements by User:SecondSight. Glass  Cobra  15:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Articles sources establish term's notability. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 22:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. Pretty good in its current form.  As a last resort, merge to seduction community, though the term is hardly exclusive to that group.--Father Goose (talk) 23:42, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I still say this could best be handled by a line or two within the "seduction community" article.  It's a colorful and useful phrase, like "pivot" or "opening a set", for describing interactions between singles but there really isn't much to be said about the phenomenon itself.  Lots of people have had the experience of a third party getting in the way of a chat-up attempt, whether it was on purpose or by accident.  Some of the published sources are just funny stories about it; the Yale paper was about almost being caught in flagrante delicto, so it went way beyond the metaphor. Squidfryerchef (talk) 01:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment- sad to say, there are WP:RS that mention this maybe due to the seduction fans mad keenness to sell the ideas, which we've seen here. As such I can't in all conscience vote 'delete'. However, this one isn't as notable as Neg (seduction).  We maybe don't need all these as separate articles. Sticky Parkin 02:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 *  Merge this term is a neologism and I'm minded to vote delete but merged it might be worth a wiki page. Tuxraider reloaded (talk) 02:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge The article is well referenced but is mostly about the meaning of a fashionable term (and Wikipedia is not a dictionary) rather than a notable phenomenon. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, when you've been cockblocked, it's real notable... --Father Goose (talk) 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * LOL! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge A read shows that it needs lots of work. But, reluctantly, I think it is very barely notable.  Atom (talk) 14:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just wanted to return and acknowledge the substantial improvements made to this article by SecondSight; candidly I understand why the nom no longer supports deletion. I still maintain my delete !vote, although now weakly so, because the sources, while much, much, much better still do not strike me as reliable in the manner in which they are being used here. I would suggest to Wikiproject Seduction that SecondSight has shown you the way; if your articles look more like this, they are unlikely to be nominated in the first place. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. This may be a neologism but so is E-mail and dozens of others that have risen to the notability threshold. Article needs improving via regular editing. Better writing, stronger sources and a meaningful and sourced section on uses in popular culture so others can see its usage. Banj e  b oi   22:13, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Trim to bare bones and merge. This is a very long dictionary definition, not an encyclopedic article, and I can't see how it warrants its own entry. I appreciate efforts have been made to improve it, but IMO it's essentially unimprovable at its core. – iride  scent  22:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep i'm an inclusionist when it comes to this stuff and this article definitely could use some work but not that much at that. this is a very common term that should have more content on it than a dictionary definition. there is newspaper coverage of it, something that i think should cockblock its deletion!MY♥IN chile 03:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Article provides reliable and verifiable sources about the subject to support the claim of notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A well-referenced article. Notability doesn't seem to be a problem here. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:04, 13 August 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.