Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David X

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. Cenarium ^Talk 01:49, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David X

Personal advert for a 'dating coach'. No evidence of any notice outside of the 'Seduction community', which is about as horrid a concept not involving bloodshed that I could imagine. Note: to the person who removed the PROD tag: why yes, indeed, I feel very negatively against adding to Wikipedia rubbish being used by the entirely unnotable to promote themselves. CalendarWatcher (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reliable sources, the quote about him being "The Godfather of Seduction" in the first sentence is cited to a forum. Icewedge (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well it appears that he is more notable than I thought but my vote stays delete until his real name, an extremely essential piece of information that I have been unable to find, is added to the article. If no one can find such a basic piece of information on this guy then I deem the sourcing insufficient. Icewedge (talk) 04:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep While it reeks of self-promotion, the book that is the main reference seems very notable. (check the wiki page for it, google it, or go straight here: . Also see David X in the book here. Tagging or cleaning is the better route IMO --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is in the book The Game (and as you can see from the reference above, it is about to be made in to a movie) and was interviewed by DeAngelo. Means a keep. Yes, the article could do with a little tidy up and expansion. But what one doesn't, it is a fine start for a new article (I only just came across it this morning). Mathmo ^Talk 02:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given how much of your editing history centres around this so-called Seduction Community, that's difficult to believe. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is hard to believe, that I only came across it that morning? Shouldn't be surprising, wikipedia is very expansive and I only log on intermittently. Secondly the extent of my edits on the edits on seduction community just shows that I have an extensive knowledge on this topic. Just like the fact I have a couple of my top edits on multisport related pages, I'm also heavily in to this topic in my real life as well. Thus if I make a statement on it (such as that the swim in a half Ironman is 2km long) then it is far more likely it is to be correct than not. But regardless, that is still entire up to you how much weight you wish to place upon it. Each to their own :) Mathmo ^Talk 13:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he's notable enough for inclusion. The article can be de-spammed. - Richard Cavell (talk) 03:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it is shown that the coverage in book is substantial, and that his coverage in it has been referred to elsewhere. Page count, please.? None of the other sources are usable. In an industry built on self-promotion, it is advisable to be very skeptical, especially of internet sources talking about each other in a tight circle. DGG (talk) 04:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see, at most, one reliable source. Jclemens (talk) 06:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 13:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The only source (Neil Strauss) is closely associated with the topic, and the ReganBooks publisher is not that reputable, even if financially successful. Also, Neil Strauss stands to gain financially from promoting other pick-up artists' successes, including his own, so there's a heavy dose of WP:ADVERT in the book and consequently in the article. VG ☎ 13:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on his inclusion in the book that was a New York Times best seller. The book goes into enough detail to meet my WP:BIO requirements. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gtstricky - do you have access to more than the Google link? And if so is there more mention than in the 1-2 pages seen there? Just trying to see if it reaches my BIO standard :) Thanks. -- SiobhanHansa 19:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That link has the entire book available. If you type in David X into the "search this book" field on the right it will bring up all the pages he is mentioned on. Just to let you in on my thinking, the book is not very flattering of David X. If that source was truly incorporated into the article it would be much less promotion and more balanced. It is however, just one source. I could not find much more. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 19:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you - will take a look. -- SiobhanHansa 19:41, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Being mentioned in something notable doesn't make someone notable. Notability is not inherited. I notice that there is no mention of him in the book's article, so he probably isn't even a big part of that book, in the wider scheme of things. At best I'd say we merge this into The Game. NZ forever (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a minor figure in the community - I could come up with a dozen others that are more significant than David X in the community - and the article itself is poorly sourced - just because he's mentioned in the Game doesn't make him significant - Swinggcat is far more significant than David X, and he's mentioned in the Game, and I couldn't imagine an article being written about Swinggcat Sedcom (talk) 06:49, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I read those pages. He is not covered substantially by the book, any more than the dozens of other minor figures. Confirms my view that trying to get an article on him is stretching things a little too far. As we say in other contexts, not yet notable. DGG (talk) 04:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, just more semi-advertorial clutter on wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given the only reliable source is Strauss' book and as far I could see David X is mainly mentioned only in passing with one small section that provides any real detail (and that detail is fairly cursory), he does not seem notable. -- SiobhanHansa 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strauss he does not appear to be notable.

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.