Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Keep Marskell 10:19, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research --Hansnesse 05:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. More likely to be fake report about some non-existent original research. Blnguyen 05:48, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Try using Google sometime. It works!--67.35.29.74 05:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, not original research and per 67.35 Kappa 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google does have links to the website promoting the book/dvd, the "mystery method" blog, etc., I don't think the evident research (discussions on usenet, according to the article) qualify as research by WP standards. See Wikipedia:No_original_research especially this section. The primary publication, as near as I can tell, is the "Mystery Method Venusian Arts Handbook" does not seem (to my browsing at least) to be on Amazon.com. Amazon lists his DVDs (the ones I could find) as "self-produced" or "Studio:Mystery Method." I don't find a collection of self published media, a commercial website, and a blog to be evidence of substantive verifable research. My apologies, I should have been clearer in the nomination. --Hansnesse 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- When I google "mystery method" [1], I see five sponsored links. Five presumably different companies are paying to attact people who search for this term. Wikipedia should be providing those searchers with an neutral answer. Kappa 06:59, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Google does have links to the website promoting the book/dvd, the "mystery method" blog, etc., I don't think the evident research (discussions on usenet, according to the article) qualify as research by WP standards. See Wikipedia:No_original_research especially this section. The primary publication, as near as I can tell, is the "Mystery Method Venusian Arts Handbook" does not seem (to my browsing at least) to be on Amazon.com. Amazon lists his DVDs (the ones I could find) as "self-produced" or "Studio:Mystery Method." I don't find a collection of self published media, a commercial website, and a blog to be evidence of substantive verifable research. My apologies, I should have been clearer in the nomination. --Hansnesse 06:54, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The Mystery Method itself claims to be original research, but I see no reason why a verifiable article could not be written about its development, marketing and claims. God knows, with 50,000+ Google hits, there's enough information about it just there on the internet. Keep. GeorgeStepanek\talk 09:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Links to www.fastseduction.com and www.mystery-method.com were left at AFC. Presumablu the requester made an account and pasted in the info themselves. - Mgm|(talk) 10:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the term seems to be used by many sites -- Astrokey44|talk 13:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable seduction technique, Mystery (the developer) is the main focus in Neil Strauss' book The Game (next to Strauss himself). --Malthusian (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This meets delete requirements as WP:NOR since there are no sources. But it seems you found some. It seems like many of the best independent links and sources mentioned above need to be added to the article.Obina 22:11, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepsubject of the book The Game which is being developed into a movie...
It has also been written up in a number of magazines and newspapers.
- 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.