Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eric Von Sydow


 * 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. --MelanieN (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Eric Von Sydow

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional article by a paid editor. Completely fails to meet WP:BIO. SmartSE (talk) 12:44, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm the creator of the page and have already disclosed my affiliations with the subject. I request to judge the page based on merit. Eric is a renowned pick up artist and dating and relationship coach. Some of the references other than those mentioned on the page are, , , , , , , . Along with it he has also been featured on abc, WSJ, USA Today, Cosmopolitan and Playboy Radio (Source: DSR). Mr RD (talk) 14:33, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I intend for it to be judged on merit. Those links you provided are either mentions in RS (i.e. not substantial coverage; 1 & 8) or unreliable/primary sources (the rest). They're of no use for demonstrating notability. Which RS states he is 'renowned'? SmartSE (talk) 15:56, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The NewYork Times link solely discusses his work with focus on him. Here are a couple of others considered reliable in the field:, , which proves his importance. Mr RD (talk) 16:50, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:40, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:45, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Mr RD (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2015 (UTC)


 * keep Sufficient coverage in independent sources. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete At first I thought the sources might cover this. Then I started cleaning up the article and realized I was performing BOGO work for the paid editor and his client. Here is a great example of the result of a conflict of interest, even a declared one, leading to bad content. — Brianhe (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As inline citations which I have added to the article. Also his works are all self published, the audio through cdbaby, which allows artists to sell directly to the public, The Seductive Secrets of Erotic Entertainers through bookbaby, the sister co. to cdbaby, and Metawhore through Dark Planet Publishing.
 * As for the other refs (mentioned above):
 * is the same as ref 2 in the article;
 * is the same as ref 1 in the article (I thought this was supposed to 'other than those mentioned on the page'?);
 * self published by Brian Fearless (who?);
 * an article for a site that publishes mix of articles by staff writers and UGC - this is a UGC article;
 * blog;
 * if it looks like spam and it smells like spam then it is probably... you can guess the rest;
 * blog;
 * blog / website that tries to sell you stuff;
 * rehash of this article which tells us a load of non-verifable guff about the non-notable Michelle McGee;
 * blogtalkradio.com, thrill96's UGC which does not 'prove his importance'. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - I do not see how this person has gotten any significant coverage. Many ordinary people have been mentioned in passing in the New York Times or Daily News. Bearian (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 20:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete for reasons listed above. Not enough independent sources to establish notability. Fuzchia (talk) 20:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete A couple of the sources provided are reliable, but the coverage is trivial. We need substantive reliable coverage, of which I am not seeing any. Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - There is a lack of reliable sources that substantially cover the subject. Inks.LWC (talk) 03:24, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, remove self-published/blog/non-reliable sources and this does not meet WP:GNG.Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 03:06, 30 September 2015 (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.