Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vin DiCarlo (3rd nomination)


 * 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. sourcing was a major concern that wasn't fully met in this afd Secret account 20:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Vin DiCarlo
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Procedural nomination due to previous speedies. Unclear if G4 applies. Single sourced, I lean towards delete per WP:BIO. Jfire (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, if the decision is delete, will the closing admin please WP:SALT? Jfire (talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I am voting since I added one of the speedys (maybe on top of an AfD? I can't remember).  As much as I find the topic of a Seduction Community icky, it does look like a valid topic and this guy seems like a valid player in it (if you google him there are a ton of hits).  Also I am not sure if you can find it, but before one of the deletes, the author Zbrower stated in the "hangon" post that he was not in fact Vin DiCarlo but had attended one of the classes and was impressed by the class.  So if we believe that Zbrower is not Vin DiCarlo then it's not self-promo.  Also someone named Edgefree tried to add this page back in November.  Same person?  Either way there seem to be a lot of people in "the community" who want this article added, so why not let them have it.  The other "famous pickup artists" get bio pages, why not this dude.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurap414 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The one source looks kosher (and may save this from a speedy), but otherwise he seems to fail WP:BIO -- no other sources could be found. I endorse salting too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 20:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, thank you Jfire for listing this properly. I do believe it has been unfairly deleted before, unless my knowledge of the deletion process is wrong and it has drastically changed (can be a tad tricky to keep up to date with everything going on here if I stop contributing so frequently for a few months). As for there only being one source there, I do recall the earlier version being better written (besides, I do believe more exist. But not much time now to go hunting around for sources, perhaps later today). If that could please be restored to a userpage of mine that would be greatly appreciated. Additionally, remember this article in this current form has only been up for a single day! A bit hasty I'd say, give it a chance. A rate of one source being added per day (which is the current rate it is at) is a pretty damn good speed! I should point out another potentially very confusing issue for while looking for sources, I think it has only been really since a year or so ago that he has gone by his real name of Vin DiCarlo (which means a lot of stuff would still be refering to his old alias he went by). Mathmo Talk 20:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as fails WP:BIO - If the article has been deleted twice before the creator should be aware that valid sources and verifiable notability is essential. Springnuts (talk) 21:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not the creator of this article, and as I'm not an admin I can't seem to see who has created the page in the past (only can see the deletions in the logs). Could well be several different people. And I shall point out all the previous deletions were speedy deletions, this is the first chance the article has had a proper AfD. Is actually kind of deceptive at first glance the list at the top of past AfDs, as none of them had a proper chance of running the full course (1st was speedied while on AfD, which I believe is kinda wrong. Second time was speedied once again as recreation of deleted material, which I do believe is perfectly fine as it is standard way of contesting a speedy deletion). Mathmo Talk 21:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes I accept that - have struck through comments above, even though it does not affect my view of whether it should be kept. Springnuts (talk) 02:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice to see us reaching a bit of agreement here. :) But now your view is cut down to merely saying "delete" and "WP:RANDOM_ACRONYM", care to elaborate on exactly where you thing it is gone unrepairably wrong? Thanks. Mathmo Talk 07:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Adding here my comments from the talk page, a bit flow of thought manner in which they were written. But shows what I've been realising, and is worthwhile noting these points:

Riiite.... I just noticed this page has several times been unfairly speedy deleted. First time due to claims of it not asserting significance, which I certainly do recall it doing. And then again a second time it was deleted as "recreation of deleted material", when this is a perfectly valid thing to do for contesting speed deletions. Please, can any admins who read this show more caution in future. At least contact me on my talk page (and give it a few days, although I often check wikipedia very frequently I can also let a couple of weeks sometimes slip by if life gets busier). Cheers! Mathmo Talk 20:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * what would be really handy is if I could see the older material in the previously deleted article, as I am not an admin and can not see it myself. If this could be restored (to a userpage of mine would be handy) then I could use some of that, because I recall an earlier version being of a much higher quality than how the article currently is. Mathmo Talk 20:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, didn't see any reference to the AfD before. Thanks for the links Jfire. Now unless the entire process has drastically changed in the past few months, what is with the non-admin closure in only a couple of days of an AfD that has almost no comments on it. Not to mention it shouldn't have been speedied before anyway. Mathmo Talk 20:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see now the non-admin closure of the AfD was by a different user. As it was speedy deleted already, which means this article has never yet had a proper AfD. Mathmo Talk 21:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's pretty clear that there's no information in the sole cited source that doesn't originate from DiCarlo himself, so we have a major failure of WP:V. And salt. Deor (talk) 21:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You appear to be confused here with WP:V in regards to the usage of the boston source, as it was not written by Vin DiCarlo himself I do not see what WP:V has anything to do with it. Mathmo Talk 22:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly, the reporter interviewed DiMarco and wrote down whatever he said. I don't call that an independent source for the information it's being used to reference. Deor (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd say you are getting mixed up here by what means independent, it is an independent source because the reporter is not Vin DiCarlo. It is of little surprise the reporter's article contains quotes from Vin DiCarlo, that is what people do when they interview a person (they get quotes etc). Mathmo Talk 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete with a large dose of salt. Tried to find some more reliable sources, came up with zippo.  Blueboy96 22:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned, that is of little surprise it is currently a tad tricky to find any more. As only very recently has he used his real name (better luck using woodhaven probably), also you might want to try searching under his company name. Mathmo Talk 22:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - as well, the nature of the seduction community is largely WEB based and underground - within the community someone can gain quite a bit of notoriety without being written about in the mainstream media. I posted the last 2 versions for Vin DiCarlo but not the previous one. While I admit that my first attempt was overly biased, my latest attempt stuck to facts that were taken directly from the Boston Magazine article. I even didn't include a quote from David DeAngelo that came from his subscription interview series because it praised him so highly. This article is third party as Mathmo stated. It was written by an independent journalist and DiCarlo was interviewed for the article. If interviewing the subject discounts a source as independent, we've got a lot of deleting to do. Indeed if you google "woodhaven pickup seduction" you'll find a lot of articles written by and about him. Zbrowman (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, he has also been on Playboy Radion and PickUp Podcast (the major podcast in the seduction community). Mathmo Talk 07:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete and yes, WP:SALT. There are simply too many unsubstantiated claims. For instance, "He coined the term “Natural Game”, in a 2006 internet essay and gave birth to the style." What essay? What coinage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuebenStoker (talk • contribs) 12:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not a reason for a deletion, if you have a problem with any of the content because you do not believe it to be true you can either remove it or go and find the source (as I know it to be true, I've gone and found the source. The article which was was refered to that was written). As you can see, it is an editorial decision. (not outright deletion) Mathmo Talk 19:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is a valid reason for deletion ... unsubstantiated=unverifiable. Blueboy96 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes obviously there is WP:V, but only if everything (or there abouts, you get my point I'm sure) is not verifiable (and you can not reasonably find anything yourself) then an article should be deleted. However if it is only bits and pieces of an otherwise worthy article, then those bits should be either editted out or the sources found (as I've now done). Mathmo Talk 21:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article is little more than a regurgitation of the Boston Magazine article. Heck, given that the majority of the article consists of direct quotes, it's probably even a copyvio. As other editors have noted, this is the issue: nobody has been able to demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. Both WP:V and WP:N are at issue; both are ground for deletion. Jfire (talk) 23:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Earlier versions were better written (besides, the debate shouldn't be over how it is currently written, but if it can be written well based on their existing sources. Which is indeed the case). Anyway, could an admin please put a copy of each of the earler versions in my userspace. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 00:20, 22 January 2008 (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.