Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. L.Rx


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. L.Rx

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:BIO. Article is a fake name of a person or some pen name of a non-notable self-proclaimed author. Was strangly prodded by the author him/herself as "unreliable references and self-promotion", which seem accurate as it contains nothing more than blatently unreliable references and self-promotional press releases and, trivial incidental coverage. Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think that the Wikipedia community is going in the wrong direction when we become the non-notable "police". This author whether he chooses to reveal him true name or not has the largest following in the "dating advice for men" community. This is documented by a reliable source - Alexa.com. You have other writers in this community such as Ross Jeffries and Mystery The Pick Up Artist who have lesser websites with not nearly as many followers - which can also be easily documented by Alexa.com - who are allowed to be on the pages of Wikipedia because they have what? - Names and outside references?

What is notable if documented large numbers of people reading the writings of an author is not notable. Wikipedia needs to update its rules to be consistent with what "notability" REALLY is in a modern internet age society. We cannot exclude those who have documented large internet followings from the definition of "notable." Okko50 (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC) Okko50  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete complete lack of secondary sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 06:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Alexa isn't, by itself, enough to keep an article - lots of pages get lots of traffic, but aren't notable. The key here is that we need to see that other people view the subject as notable, and that they say so in sources judged to be reliable under our rules. Besides, this article isn't about the website, it's about the author. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 12:29, 19 April 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.