Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed


 * 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. Consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women into Bed

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Non-notable book. Of the references, the salon.com one just mentions the book in passing as part of an interview with one author. Autarch (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2012 June 17.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  19:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. There's a bit of a problem, indeed. Mystery's article was deleted because there just weren't enough sources to show that he has notability outside of a TV show he hosted or The Game. You're correct in that most of the sources mention him and his book briefly. Here's the layout of the current sources for anyone coming into this:
 * 1) This focuses on Mystery, with the book being just a brief mention.
 * 2) This also briefly mentions Mystery and the book, but they're not even really the focus of the article. The idea of negging is, the book and its author were just the article's lead in.
 * 3), These are short reviews from PW and the LJ. Both are very short and so far these are the only two reviews I found that actually focus on the book itself and don't just use it as a brief mention.
 * 4) This mentions the book directly, but it's more just a summary of its contents than an actual review.
 * I kind of hemmed and hawed over whether or not the sources combined show notability. I do count the PW and LJ sources as RS, but I don't know if they and the other sources really show that this is a notable book. I'm open to debate, but this is just one of those situations where it walks the very thin line of notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:22, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal reviews are sufficient. They're short but not trivial, and that's the key: the book meets the GNG, no matter how offensive it may be. Jclemens (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep First great book about seduction.--AeroPsico (talk) 07:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:ILIKEIT. Carrite (talk) 16:04, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

 
 * Delete - I disagree with Jclemens, Publisher's Weekly and Library Journal reviews are trivial. The PW article is only 6 sentences long, 3 sentence lead in, one sentence with title, price, and ISBN, 2 sentences to describe and critique the books contents. The Library Journal article (scroll down) is two paragraphs long, mostly describing another book 'Hooking Up or Holding Out: The Smart Girl's Guide to Driving Men Crazy and/or Finding True Love'. I'd recommend a merge to Mystery (pickup artist) but that is just a redirect to The Pickup Artist (TV series). Perhaps there is enough material between the tv show and this book, as well as the number of interviews with Mystery to justify a spin-out of Mystery to his own article, but this book fails WP:BKCRIT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshuaism (talk • contribs) 16:28, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Insane as it may, those "trivial" mentions count as notability per WP:NBOOKS. Exactly how this gaping hole in the notability standards exists is beyond me... - The Bushranger One ping only 05:39, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well except the general notability guideline states, 'If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page'. WP:NBOOKS shouldn't have to reiterate that GNG still applies. --Joshuaism (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:26, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - Book announcements in trade publications do not constitute significant coverage. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sorry, but PW and LJ mentions really are too short and superficial to be nontrivial. There's not enough material to support an articles, as inspiring as certain users may find it. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The author may be notable (so a merge may be appropriate) but the book itself does not seem to have been the subject of any meaningful coverage. OSborn arfcontribs. 00:21, 3 July 2012 (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.