Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seduction community

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. Clear consensus to keep. Should have been closed very early as this is a merge proposal and doesn't belong in AfD. Michig (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seduction community[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's about time we merged this WP:POVFORK back into sexual predator. It's a single topic.This article has been tagged for irredeemable POV and UNDUE issues for a long time, and that seems to me the only way to fix it. Guy (Help!) 22:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 05:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a synonym for pick up artists, and their community - clearly pick up artists are real - this is an actual concept, and they have seminars and meetings and swap notes. The article may need a name change, and the bias dealt with, but its clearly an actual concept, with participants in numerous countries. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not at issue. The problem is that there is no objective distinction between pick-up artists and sexual predators. It's a POV fork. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no fan of Pick up artists (in fact i hate them), but clearly there is a distinction between PUA (the focus being that this group is about using/prefecting techniques to seduce/pick up women) and sexual predators, who are people who will break the law to get sex. Deathlibrarian (talk) 10:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Removal of this article is nothing less than restraining free speech. Seduction community / PUA is a genuine concept and in my extensive reading on the matter the proponents DO NOT advocate coercion or any other behaviour that is non-consensual. Moves to remove this article appear to be derived from a pro-feminist agenda that is 1: not fully informed about the issues at hand nor 2: willing to accept that men have the right to be fully informed about the issues that matter to them. Thank you for your informed intelligent consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) — Flashmanthecat (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

See WP:FREESPEECH. Guy (Help!) 18:16, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename/Refocus to pick-up artist per WP:COMMONNAME - Eh. Yep, a whole lot in common with sexual predator, but the vast majority of sources I'm seeing for the latter are crime-related, and there's a ton of coverage of social/cultural aspects of pick-up artists. You could argue it's a subtype, but notable in its own right. This presumes it being renamed pick-up artist or something similar as "seduction community" does not look to be the common name for this. I'd be more likely to support deletion of the other article, which is all over the place and does not seem to have a clearly consistent definition (not that that's something that needs to be resolved here). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I am OK with that, but there is still the issue of #MeToo and the fact that there is actually no objective distinction between these self-styled pick-up artists and sexual predators: indeed, they are a form od sexual predator. The entire focus of the field is to coerce women into sex. If consent would be freely given, there would be no need for the armoury of psychological tools they use. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Nominator is not asking for deletion, but for a merge. That being said, I agree with Rhododendrites' suggestion of renaming to pick up artists. Nom's suggestion that pick up artists are sexual predators is problematic in a POV sense anyway. Acebulf (talk) 04:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously pick-up "artist" is a concept that has been reported on. Fields with negative coverage (sometimes deservedly) are still fields. Sexual predator is a criminal / legal term and we should not indirectly label people as criminals. BLP violation. GuzzyG (talk) 02:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the concept meets the WP:GNG, similarly to how we cover the Suffragettes and the Women's liberation movement in different articles. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 09:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep rename to pick-up artist per WP:COMMONNAME and Rhododendrites Andy Dingley (talk) 11:41, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable content, although a rename to pick-up artist sounds like a good idea. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename into pick-up community. As to the initial notion of the nominator, I consider that the sexual predator article is a much more likely candidate for deletion as it has virtually no definable subject and is more likely something for the Urban Dictionary than Wikipedia. --eugrus (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it gets ample coverage so its notable. If you want to merge or rename it, that's a different discussion. Dream Focus 18:26, 30 March 2018 (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.