Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David DeAngelo

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus (7 keep, 7 delete). Robert 17:04, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] David DeAngelo

Weak Delete. This name has plenty of hits on Google [1], but as it stands, it is very promotional. Unless it had some serious re-work, I don't think it should be in Wikipedia. Thoughts? PhilipO 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Borderline Adcruft the way it is written. I'm also not convinced of his notability, Google hits notwithstanding. I'm abstaining for now, until I do a bit more research. Still, I think a cleanup tag could be slapped on to fix some the (self?)-promotional language used in the article.--Isotope23 20:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge Notable dating coach within the Seduction Community an article that is also up for deletion. Unfortunately, the DeAngelo is extremely self-promotional and aggrandizing, even after extensive revisions. There are also clear factual errors and blatant attempts to enhance his reputation. For example, the "neg" is a "seduction strategy" devised and popularized by another seduction community guru known as Mystery] Also, his real name is not "Mark Matthews". DutchSeduction 09:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I don't see sufficient independent press coverage, which would be needed to provide a reliable bio on him. I don't think blog quotes, are sufficient sufficient counter-balance. Also, the subject matter that this guy writes on, guarentees this article will permanently attract link spammers. One of the blog links, used to provide criticism/balance, includes a sales pitch for the guy's book. While I'm sure editor who added that link, did so in good faith, it's links to advertisements like that, which are extremely difficult to protect against. --rob 21:05, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I've spent over five hours hours writing and editing this article frequently to remove extra links - take a look at today's history. Unfortunately, people keep adding more and more positive things. I strongly dislike what this guy teaches, but it's notable nonetheless - there are a lot of people out there who refer to these things like the "3-second rule." --Quintin3265 21:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment DeAngelo didn't have anything to do with the 3-second rule. The term was invented by another teacher. Just FYI. DutchSeduction 10:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Just did a major cleanup, removing even more stuff that somehow got in there. Take a look at the revised article before voting. --Quintin3265 21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Hmmm. The vast majority of the text remains in the article - and the link for http://www.fastseduction.com went back in. I feel this just strengthens the case for its deletion IMHO. Cheers --PhilipO 22:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment Fast Seduction is an important site to the article - most of what he teaches comes from or is posted there. I thought that, with the text, the issue was whether the article was NPOV - I made it sound a lot more negative. --Quintin3265 22:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep. A Google search for "David DeAngelo" +"dating tips" results in over 41,700 matches. This figure appears to be notable within his field. Hall Monitor 23:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. As is evident from a Google search, David DeAngelo is well known and ought to be in Wikipedia. Filur 01:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC) User has less than 100 edits
  • Comment on fairness. This subscripted text is biased. I don't see how it's relevant how many edits this user has. He didn't create his account after the vote began, he's contributed to quite a few articles, and this isn't an anonymous vote. This text should be ignored and the vote counted. --Quintin3265 20:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. Not only do the Google searches bear out the validity and merit of this material, the article itself offers an accurate summary of the key points behind the program. (Regardless of a given writer's opinion). Propose people maintain watch on the article for strong bias one way or the other and its overall length, but should not be deleted. -- Barrettmagic 08:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but article needs to be constantly monitored to remove any spammed links to seduction websites selling books, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaaa (talk • contribs) 13:05, 1 October 2005
• Strong keep. David helped me turn my life around. --84.47.55.102 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete because the article about the larger movement to which DeAngelo belongs, the seduction community article, was deleted. Although I supported that articles existance, I felt that individual members of the seduction community would not merit their own articles because most of the theories of the movement evolved nearly collectively. Therefor this article should be deleted too if the other one was.
• Delete as no merge possible.--nixie 01:26, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete This article is adcruft. Also suggest deleting Ross Jeffries for exactly the same reason. The Seduction Community article had 10 references from independent news media like the New York Times and was still deleted. What this means is that the Wikipedia community does not understand nor care to understand the Seduction Community. DutchSeduction 08:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I wrote this article well before articles on the seduction community, double your dating, and the other topics existed. In fact, the term seduction community used to redirect to this article. It existed on its own just fine for a month. --Quintin3265 12:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Quintin, as you have interest in this area, why not work together on creating an NPOV article on the community, which does not unduly promote DeAngelo or any other commercial interest? The point is to explain the men's rights movement from which DeAngelo and Ross Jeffries have been profiting. DutchSeduction 15:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment It depends on the outcome of this vote. I don't see how this article is "adcruft" with 41,700 search results to his name, and after all the changes were made to it to make it NPOV. If this article is deleted, I am not willing to spend another ten hours researching and removing spam only to have it risk deletion also. If you want to change your vote to "keep," and work to improve this article, the article on the seduction community, and the article on Ross Jeffries, then I would certainly be willing to help you. --Quintin3265 15:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment Quintin, what you don't realize is that everything related to the seduction community is regarded as commercial spam by a large number of WP deletionists. We need to start from the beginning without any promotional biases toward any particular website or any commercial seduction teacher. (This article is the most poorly written of the three you mentioned and the most POV.) Lest you or I be accused of sockpuppetry or spamming. The bottom line for a lot of people is that the subject of guys picking up women is controversial and not notable, regardless of the amount of Google hits, television and newspaper coverage. DutchSeduction 09:56, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
      • If I can see some evidence of newspaper and television coverage, I might change my vote. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please if there is too much advertising we should edit this not erase it that is not the wiki way Yuckfoo 18:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are several groups that mention him in addition to the multpile Google hits, I'm finding very little quality in there. Is there any media coverage for this person, because I can't find any. - brenneman^(t)(c) 00:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment There are currently AfD and VfU votes taking place for this article, for Ross Jeffries and for Seduction Community. DeAngelo and Jeffries are two of the big commercial teachers to come out of the Seduction Community. These two are also the ones who do extensive Internet marketing, so you will definitely get some Google hits for them. Where media coverage is concerned, the most interesting (and IMO most NPOV) story revolves around the Seduction Community itself and covers a number of the "schools of thought" on this phenomenon. Seduction Community had an extensive list of media references due to the recent publication of a book on the subject, 'The Game' by Neill Strauss. DutchSeduction 04:15, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment So was David DeAngelo (referenced in this new best-selling book 'The Game' by Neill Strauss). All the more reason to keep the article, as his program is now referenced in mainstream materials. To make an arguement something needs to be removed because there's a commercial element to it would require removal of every product/company article on Wiki (IE - movies, high-tech companies, etc.) And yes, his material changed my life as well. -- Barrettmagic 07:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Barrett, I agree. See my talk page and the VfU for Seduction Community, which endeavors to provide an unbiased portrayal of the seduction community - i.e. the trainers, books, etc, teaching people how to seduce women. The topic overall is notable. The problem is that the subject is also controversial and a spam target. You are showing bias to one particular businessman in this case. He himself should probably be a footnote in a bigger story as he is barely mentioned in Neill Strauss' book. DutchSeduction 12:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Notable enough. Przepla 13:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.