Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David DeAngelo (third nomination)

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 Keep. Rjd0060 (talk) 15:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David DeAngelo[edit]

No notability and references put which link to blogs etc, to pad out and give the illusion of references. In fact, there are only a handful of mentions of him in WP:RS -[1], some of which are press releases or an article saying he spams people with advertising. Non-notable, promotional intent. Presumably in the previous debate people say they would add WP:RS, but this is three years on and they aren't genuinely there to a sufficient extent, and probably never will be as they don't and won't exist. Sticky Parkin 13:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. The article as it is currently written is unambiguously spam and appears be gaming the system (see nominator's comment about padded references, etc.). I urge other editors to take the time (at least a few minutes) to examine the article, its style, and the references. Particularly galling is a list of "Superseeded" DVD's and CD's that are "no longer for sale." Finally, searching the proprietary OCLC WorldCat (not Open WorldCat) which allows for refined searching by specific authors, of all of his numerously listed works in his article, only one library in the catalog appears to own anything by him (LA County Public owns the 12 CD set Interviews with dating gurus) and that item is self-published by DeAngelo. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on OCLC WorldCat - this is a database of 95 million bibliographic records contributed by 60,000 member libraries in 112 countries. --Quartermaster (talk) 15:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, anyone with even tangential exposure to the seduction community has heard of this guy, he is one of the major players (no pun intended). Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable outside of niche community. The tone is strongly promotional and like most of the 'seduction' articles seems to feed on itself in circular fashion. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The guy's got 226,000 GHits. Has anyone tried pasting it into that little box to the right of the address bar? Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 02:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, i agree it could be a better page, but that doesn't mean delete it; i agree 100% with Aldrich. Scholarus (talk) 02:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the extensive set of references should speak for themselves here, really, but in any case this person has received non-trivial coverage by multiple third party publications. That's the end. JBsupreme (talk) 03:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am not an experienced Wikipedia editor, and I won't attempt to bring any of the numerous Wikipedia policies to my defense in asserting this opinion. I am simply a user of Wikipedia, one of the many to whom, I believe, you would be doing a disservice by deleting this article. I found out about David DeAngelo and his works through an online dating site. After going through his works, I found them very useful. I thought I'd look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, and I did, and in doing so I found links to the "seduction community" and other major players in it, such as Ross Jeffries, whom I had never heard about before. Had Wikipedia not had an article about DeAngelo, I would never have found out about this seduction community and these other gurus like Jeffries. The wonder of Wikipedia is that it allows human knowledge to be tied together in a logical way, such as linking DeAngelo and Jeffries together through the seduction community. So, while I agree that the article on DeAngelo perhaps goes into a little too much detail on his specific teachings, and could use a clean-up, I nonetheless repeat my assertion: if you delete this article, you'd be doing a disservice to people who, like me, would look up DeAngelo on Wikipedia, find nothing, but, unlike me, would not be led to other information that may be useful to them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.235.127.108 (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll be the first to admit that I think that this guy is perpetuating the problems guys have with his "cocky and funny" method and that I stand against everything he teaches. I hate the seduction community. However, that's not a sufficient reason to delete this article or any article associated with the community. There are quite a few editors who tend to move for deletion on these seduction articles because they obviously disapprove of the community's methods. The seduction community and DeAngelo are notable, and are worth including. --Quintin3265 (talk) 22:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A simple google search turns up numerous references and articles from many sources. True, this article needs a lot of cleanup and reads like an ad, but that doesn't mean deletion is necessary. For those who want deletion on an ideological basis, he's not a scam artist-I was skeptical but desperate when I ordered his work, but the products did more than advertised. Also, unlike most of the "seduction community" he strongly respects women, values honesty, and promotes long-term relationships. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.16.38 (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm am absolutely astounded beyond belief a person would put up for deletion David DeAngelo. Especially an editor who has recently been making a major contribution to discussions and articles on the seduction community, please do educate yourself on this topic least you make again another blunder of this magnitude. Yes, this article does need some editor work on it but anybody with even the most basic level of knowledge on this topic will know David DeAngelo is one of the most key subjects in this area that there is. Mathmo ^Talk 11:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I've since culled out part of the article and made a start on improving the formating of it. Mathmo ^Talk 11:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Blunder Keep, I'm appalled... APPALLED... that the David DeAngelo article would be nominated for deletion. Just look at the intro paragraph! It has three references! Two from Donovan and one from "Dan and Jennifer." The section on his background is sourced with references from Cliff and Neil Strauss. If you knew as much as Cliff about this topic, you would not have made this mistake. If people say they are going to add reliable sources, you are just going to have to trust that people will add reliable sources. Three years might just not be enough time. I am with Mathmo in that I hope that you educate yourself before you make another blunder of this magnitude. AfD is not for cleanup. And AfD is not for someone who is one of the most key subjects in this area. -- Swerdnaneb 15:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Dan and Jennifer" are cited? Really? Had I known such authoritative sources were in Pagan nee Angelo's corner I would probably have not (erroneously, as I now see) voted to delete. A genuine thanks for the "heads up." When I have the time I'll head on over to the Reliable Source Noticeboard and work on getting these folks more universally recognized! WorldCat's bias against "Dan and Jennifer" is well known in my circles. --Quartermaster (talk) 16:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article does not at all seem to me to be spammy. I imagine that if it were written by DD it would sould very different. This article might not be perfect, but I feel it is nominated for deletion due to some individuals not liking the subject matter instead of an objective look at how encyclopedic it is. If it's just that problem then just clean it up. Don't let the thought police run amok here.Itsme2003 (talk) 02:07, 14 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.