Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Art of Charm


 * 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. Noting that nominator cast an additional !vote.  Jujutacular  talk 02:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The Art of Charm

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Reason WP:SPIP http://theartofcharm.com/the-art-of-charm-on-wikipedia/

Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:16, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, weakly. Note that this is about a New York and Los Angeles based service company specializing in dating coaching for men and women.  It does have some coverage in reliable sources, but those would appear to be mostly human interest stories that do not establish that this business has enough historical, technical, or cultural significance to achieve long term historical notability.  The sources seem rather inflated, and many are local access TV shows and commercial sites of various sorts, suggesting puffery. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality-related deletion discussions.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:44, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per Ihcoyc (Smerdis of Tlön) and as a likely paid advert.  Them From  Space  16:14, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per Ihcoyc.  WackyWace  converse 16:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: obvious ad, not enough to create notability.  Dewritech (talk)  19:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: This page has violated several key features of Wikipedia, including notability, Neutral-Point-of-View (NPOV), and long-term significance. I find it especially disingenious for Wikipedia to leave this article because it serves no value to anyone other than the company, which has paid to have the article edited in their favor. For that reason, as a self-promotional article, it should be deleted.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 20:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. I had already listed and deleted two of the key people (Articles for deletion/Jordan Harbinger, Articles for deletion/Johnny Dzubak), and this one is no better. Non-notable paid advert. Fails WP:CORP. Christopher Connor (talk) 03:52, 9 August 2010 (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.