Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neg (seduction)

Add links
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 was no consensus. Shereth 20:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neg (seduction)

[edit]
Neg (seduction) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable term with very restricted use, seemingly only applicable to the work of a single author. Heavily dependent on niche language from other "seduction" articles. Rob Banzai (talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, this is a very newly created article and thus the nominator is way off the mark as their only impression of it appears to come from the article. Is not dependent on a single author at all, is just because of the newness of the article that this appears to be so. Is not heavily dependent on "niche language", neither is that relevant to AFD. Mathmo Talk 05:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NEO. "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term." I don't see any of that in the article, and honestly--I'd be pretty astonished if there was anything about it. Movingboxes (talk) 05:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most important, notable and famous concepts in the seduction community as far as pop culture is concerned. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NAD and WP:NEO. We could probably put some of the content in flirting or seduction community. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And while we're at it, delete computer. Notice the first line of that article? "A computer is a machine that manipulates data according to a list of instructions." Omigosh! Sounds suspiciously like a dicdif. WP:NAD! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:POINT. Let's not get silly here. Movingboxes (talk) 06:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's the exact same argument. Because the article happens to explain what the subject matter is, people bring up WP:NAD, which is a total non sequitur. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 06:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The difference is that computer goes beyond the first sentence to explain the concept of computers and their significance and the article in question does not. The article serves as a slang/jargon guide and that isn't what the project is here for. You say it is "important, notable and famous . . . as far as pop culture is concerned," yet there isn't anything but a single CSI mention and in-community usage to show for it. Movingboxes (talk) 07:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well shit, I don't see a whole lot of mentions of banthas outside the community of Star Wars fans, so I guess we better delete that too! Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 07:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do you have anything to say about this article other than pointing and saying "THEM TOO!"? Surely you're familiar with WP:OSE. If you feel that strongly about computer and bantha, you're welcome to nominate them for deletion (in the case of bantha for the 2nd time). Movingboxes (talk) 07:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • It's not my fault deletionists are inconsistent and therefore create no objective criteria by which to judge whether a subject is worthy of inclusion and therefore worth investing time in creating an article about. Those who routinely create articles rather than only trying to get them deleted have good reason to be annoyed at the arbitrary bases and incorrect application of policies and guidelines used to justify deletion. Moreover, it should be noted that it was not by deletions that we got to almost 2,500,000 articles and if it had not been for deletions, we would be far beyond that count now. It's just a bad practice. Deletion hinders the encyclopedia, rather than helping it. Essentially, we should completely abolish all deletions, even for copyvios and libel. This can be accomplished by moving the Wikipedia servers to a floating community in international waters where no laws can interfere (see seasteading). That will also save a lot of effort that currently goes into copyright compliance as well. Vandalism pages and such can be dealt with through the pure wiki deletion system. It's really the best thing for everyone. Why don't we start on the road to this brave new Wikipedia by applying the new standards to this article? Since rules are descriptive, rather than prescriptive, we can go ahead and begin blazing that trail now, and let the rules catch up, as they will in time. Who's with me? Let us begin making preparations immediately for server relocation, and may the keep votes begin. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 07:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If we were to completely abolish deletions, we would have far more pages, yes. But more than half of those pages would be articles like "My brother", or "This band that I was in that was together for three days". Deletions are just as necessary to the Wikipedia process as article creations. And you really think that making Wikipedia an illegal operation loaded with crap articles would make it better? There are several problems with that logic. And you say that there is "no objective criteria by which to judge whether a subject is worthy of inclusion", when in fact there is, Here. If you really want the article to stay, it would do you best to read the notability guidelines and provide evidence that the subject is notable, rather than complaining about the process. Oh, and this sentence makes no sense at all: "Since rules are descriptive, rather than descriptive". Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 15:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence has been presented that articles about non-notable subjects are detrimental to the encyclopedia in any way. Notability guidelines are just based on what people have done in the past; thus it is perfectly acceptable to argue that they should do something different in the present and future, which will in turn lead to a change in the guideline. If we never break outside that mold, then things won't change. Verifiability is a much more objective criterion for inclusion that notability, which is inherently subjective. How much coverage in reliable sources is "enough"? It's been argued over and over. And, if we move Wikipedia to a jurisdiction where copyvios are allowed, it won't really be an "illegal operation" will it? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, go argue for a change of policy in the appropriate place. That place is not here. Here we discuss where this article lies with respect to existing policy. Mayalld (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're proposing a catch-22. Policy is most commonly promulgated as a result of decisions made in forums such as AfDs rather than, for instance, through proposals. (It is exceedingly rare that a proposal actually results in a policy change.) Thus, if we want to change policy, this is the place to do it. See Wikipedia:POLICY#Sources_of_Wikipedia_policy. The most effective thing to do is create good practices here so that they can be documented in policy. Here is where the rubber hits the road. Now, have it! Everyone, please change your votes to keep, so we can get this show on the road. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nn neologism. Mayalld (talk) 06:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article could use some revising and additional sources. But reliable sources on "neg" are available, so deletion is not the right solution. Here are some sources that I ran into with a bit of Googling, which include discussion about negs in addition to defining them (satisfying WP:NEO):
    • Page 2 of this article in the Times UK characterizes a neg as Mystery's "greatest achievement"
    • The Rochester City Newspaper calls the neg "one of the many interesting examples of pseudo-psychology the PUAs employ"
    • Salon.com defines the neg and characterizes it as "inspiring ire"

So we have these three reliable sources defining and discussing the term, plus two books in the current article by the guy who coined the term and wrote extensively about it. Rather than being deleted, this article should be improved using the reliable sources available. --SecondSight (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't bring myself to say 'keep' as the article and concept is so vile, but I'm afraid this concept has been mentioned in many WP:RS. [1] The article needs a lot of WP:NPOVing and other help though.Sticky Parkin 19:48, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with negs? It's not the seduction gurus' fault that these techniques work on many beautiful women, and that seemingly "nicer" methods are counterproductive. At the end of the day, there is often a big difference between what women say they want and what they actually respond romantically to. So, what is a guy to do? Either remain an average frustrated chump, or try what has been proven to work. The development and propagation of tools such as the neg was a great service to humanity. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this most recent comment (and many by this editor in relation to "seduction" topics) seems absolutely laden with POV tones. "Great service to humanity?" That's absurd. My issue with this article (and my original issue with cockblock is that these minor sociological points are being blown completely out of proportion. Instead of advocating for an article you sound like you are evangelizing a way of life. All we're talking about is an over-inflation of the old "how to pick up chicks" books. That's it. It's not a great service to humanity. It is a niche topic that has been peppered with buzz-words as if it is a legitimate field of scholarly study. Your worship at this weird altar of pickup-artists is not conducive to NPOV article creation. Rob Banzai (talk) 20:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rbanzai, a lot of cults edit their articles on wikipedia. Aldrich, I doubt women with any self-esteem think men who act like this are anything more than obnoxious and lacking in social skills, and think the rest of the seduction communities' techniques and obsession creepy, desparate and sad. However, let's get back to discussing this AfD.:) Sticky Parkin 01:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, negs are generally recognized as being most effective on "10s" with sky-high self-confidence. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Those selling the courses, and believers, would say that wouldn't they? Try and publish these findings in a peer reviewed scientific journal and see how far they get. Sticky Parkin 02:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Any topic that is believed in by a large group of people is generally held to be notable. Proof of the veracity of the belief held by millions that the Assumption of Mary occurred has not been presented in peer-reviewed scientific journals either, but we have an article about it. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was responding to your comment which implied that these were sort of scientific findings or 'generally recognised' rather than a believe system. Plus it's not held by a large number of people in the real world, maybe it seems it to you as you mix in those circles/in forums for it/read the stuff a lot. I've not really heard, for instance, of this movement having encroached on the UK (where I am) much (yet). Sticky Parkin 17:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, I was hestitating about the 'c' word above but that's what I meant.:) Sticky Parkin 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Second Sight, your idea about a concepts in the seduction community article is probably the most viable one, from a strategic point of view. As we all know, it's easier to get away with adding content to an existing article than it is to create a new article from scratch that will survive. Thus, this can become our foothold for adding more and more content about the seduction community to Wikipedia, and it will be hard for them to do anything about it because what are they going to do, delete the whole thing? They can remove content but another editor can just add it back. All in all, it sounds like a splendid idea. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 23:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In instances like this we need to use judgment. My judgment is the term is not used in this meaning outside the community, though it somewhat resembles the more general use of similar words, and is best described in those of the main articles on the technique. Otherwise it requires the repetition of all the basic material for providing context, and does serve in practice mainly to multiple the number of articles.DGG (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Ok, but what are the policy reasons behind your vote to delete? Terms such as categorical imperative also have no meaning outside a particular community and somewhat resemble the more general use of similar words, but they are worth including in wikipedia because they are written about by notable people and in reliable sources. Same thing with neg. Neg is discussed in other articles, but that discussion is not as well sourced as the current version of this article. --SecondSight (talk) 20:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard of categorical imperative in any other sense than that sense you mention, and it's not unknown at all. I studied it for A-level when I was 16. So, unless you mean outside of all Arts faculties in higher education and academia, that's a pretty large community in which it's included. Anyway, wikipedia is explicitly here to cover things mentioned in WP:RS, as you say. As you say, 'Neg' counts too IMHO (unfortunately). Sticky Parkin 00:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find, as you branch out from your insular world of books and venture into the social realm, that bragadoccio is not an endearing quality. I think I deserve another civility award for not going off on you in a more extreme and devastating manner. Done. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 00:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aldrich you've been warned about making personal attacks against other editors. Please cool off before revisiting this discussion. We've had good feedback on the other 'seduction' AfDs but it can't happen with this kind of antagonism.Rob Banzai (talk) 01:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For those whose hysteria blinds them to the vast importance of seduction theory, remember this quote:
Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:10, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I know we're pretty far afield here from debating the merits of the article, but I can't even properly express right now how offensive this quote is to me. The solution to the problem of men feeling they have the "right" to women's bodies isn't to teach them cool tricks to score with said bodies. And even if Strauss was right and he had found the super-awesome solution to rape and other violent crime, that still doesn't have anything to do with how this particular article fits with Wikipedia policy. I could stumble upon the solution to world peace in my dreams tonight and it still wouldn't be appropriate for me to create an article when I woke up. Movingboxes (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • He's probably not just talking about rapists but also people like Timothy McVeigh, who never had a girlfriend and finally committed an act he described as "state-assisted suicide."[2] There's definitely evidence that single young men are statistically more likely to commit acts of violence (indeed, some worry that China will get caught up in that problem due to the shortage of females caused by the one-child policy.)[3] Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neg_(seduction)&oldid=1088095603"