Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concepts in the seduction community


 * 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   no consensus. Mild WP:TRAINWRECK. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 19:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Concepts in the seduction community

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No indication of notability. Terms that appear in one or two books and that haven't received any outside recognition are not notable. WP:DICT, etc. ("Neg" appears to have received some acknowledgment so one might consider un-merging it. However, "neg (seduction)" is not quite NPOV.) I am likewise nominating a number of other pickup artist-related articles on concepts and people which, while perhaps famous in the so-called "seduction community," have not received the necessary recognition - ie. significant coverage - from reliable sources. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:12, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge to Pickup artist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchester369 (talk • contribs) 10:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Strauss's book was on the NYTimes Bestseller list for weeks on end, those specific terms are language people are speaking now, and that phenomenon has been reported on by reliable non-blog news outlets. It's more notable than "insert yet another crappy band no-one's ever heard of here". 173.52.133.162 (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC) — 173.52.133.162 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Strong keep Owen Cook. He is the owner of a highly successful international business and mentioned/written about hugely in Strauss's well known book. This is a very important phenomenon and should not be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.111.29.13 (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)  — 178.111.29.13 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Lurkers should note that in spite of the above comments from what appear to be single-purpose accounts, significant coverage in reliable sources not only means that means that "everyone uses these terms" would not equal notability even if it were true, but also that Strauss's book isn't enough because "sources" = plural. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:15, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep and consider individually. totally dissimilar things, whose only relationship is heir common association with what I, and many of us, consider a rather distasteful subject. Jeffries and Juggler and Cook and possibly Perrion are notable authors. The "concepts" article is a suitable place for discussing things  and terms that may not be notable individually;  "Seduction Literature" is a notable genre--the two should be suitably expanded to cover a variety of other minor topics that do not merit individual discussion.   AFC I'd merge into the concepts article, but that does not take an AfD.    DGG ( talk ) 07:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep and selectively relist seperately. Bulk nominations are rarely a good idea except with large groups of substantially identical articles, which these clearly aren't, nor are they of even roughly equivalent notability. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  03:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep I picked an article at random (Ross Jeffries) and found (even at nomination time) it gave references to significant coverage in the Guardian and New York Times. So, I do not agree with the nomination in the specific claim it makes. Therefore, I do not think these articles should be treated in a single nomination. Hence keep and, if need be, consider any of these articles on their individual merits. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

--Bobbyd2011 (talk) 11:36, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - No need for separate article. Almost all the information here is the same information in the numerous other related articles.
 * Close, this is a poorly-formed bulk nomination, as all articles in this nomination should be nominated separately. Nyttend (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Close as nominator - maybe I'll get round to listing these separately sometime. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:31, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Are we really meant to believe that there is a community of seducers. Or that slang terminology can be passed off as concepts?  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 19:23, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete The so-called "seduction community" is just a bunch of completely insignificant selfhelp scammers - the often quoted Neil Strauss himself published his fictional book as advertisement for his own scam activiry (selling DVDs for $3,799 for example). Wikipedia is not a free advertisement platform for these pathetic scammer clowns. Johannes Christian (talk) 13:15, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seduction concepts (or whatever you want to call it) is a reasonable thing to have an article on. There must be newspaper and magazine articles on the subject that could be used as sources.  Since the academic community does research on human reactions (e.g. the work on dancing published last year), there might be academic literature to cite.  Conceivably this could be developed into a valuable article.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notable and dare I say interesting. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:28, 7 February 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.