Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics

This article was deleted out of process
It was deleted before a consensus could emerge by what appears to be a very subjective decision by the admin. The article had four published sources: The Game, an article in The Times, and two other articles that weren't linked to. Other editors tried to dismiss The Game as fiction, and the article in The Times as trivial. Here's a quote from the Times article: "Tyler Durden (according to Strauss and several hundred websites) is one of the most polished PUAs in the world, with routines for every occasion. No woman, allegedly, can resist him." That doesn't sound "trivial" to me. At the least, no arguments were provided explaining why the coverage in The Times was so trivial except for one editor's personal opinion that it was just a "disguised tabloid." As for The Game, it was labelled a work of fiction, despite an editor pointing out that it is listed as non-fiction or biography on amazon.com. Why were these deeply subjective arguments (the claim that the Times article was trivial), or rebutted arguments (the claim that The Game is fiction) considered by the closing admin to be the "consensus" of the page? There was no consensus here.

Even worse, two other sources (one in Men's Health, and one in Edge Magazine) that didn't have links were just completely ignored by everyone voting deletion and by the closing admin, as if sources that aren't linked to somehow don't exist! (I admit that editors opposing deletion didn't mention these articles either, but that's no excuse.) I actually found a link to the Edge Magazine article on a website archiving the magazine (which is now out of print). The text to both the Men's Health and Edge Magazine articles are available on the news section of RSD's website, where anyone could have found them. I also just found another published source mentioning RSD, though it was not available during the AFD:

But then, eerily, I run into two guys from Real Social Dynamics, another local pickup group that hosts trainings every weekend. I watch as the short, unshaven guy with an annoying accent and his friend sporting black nail polish and lots of jewelry—classic peacocking—approach two Scandinavian-looking girls who have already been hit on by PickUp 101 guys. I’m with Daniel, one of Mason’s assistants, and he explains how their techniques differ, as if they’re from a rival kung fu school. “We don’t try to entertain the girl as much. They’re acting like it’s a club in the middle of Union Square.”

The deletion is clearly out of process because (1) the closing admin claimed consensus when there wasn't one and discussion was still going, (2) the arguments for throwing out two sources (The Times and The Game) were specious or unsupported (3) supporters of deletion and the closing admin completely ignored two perfectly good sources that weren't linked to. (1) and (2) are a matter of interpretation, though (3) is a fact. Articles should never be deleted on the grounds of lacking sources when two sources have been ignored during the discussion. And finally, another source for the article is available now (the one in San Francisco Magazine). --SecondSight 02:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Adding to talk page removed comment from the discussion.

 * Agreed. Interestingly though, Mystery Method's wiki page has not been focused on "criticism from The Game" in the way that the Real Social Dynamics page has. If you review the past discussions, you'll see that this page has been hotly contested in somewhat of an editing war for close to a year now (by people who appear to have possible emotional involvement in it, for example the poster above using the term "rats"). If the Neil Strauss book belongs in RSD or MM's criticism sections, it belongs there and ONLY there. This page needs a criticism section, as do all wiki pages, but it is not to become a hack job. While I'm not personally going to add Neil Strauss' criticism of Mystery Method into their wiki (again I believe that it stems primarily from commercial rivalry) I do believe that regardless, if the the Neil Strauss work is to be referenced it must not become a focus of the main article. If there is to be a re-write, the main article is to inform the reader of Real Social Dynamics' history and philosophies and ideas as presented in their teachings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.208.81.137 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 1 February 2007