Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook (3rd 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 delete. No valid policy backing those requesting to keep this BLP. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cook

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

I'd originally merged this into the article for The Game since that's predominantly what he's known for. That has been contested by another user and the article was restored by them. I can't find a lot of reliable sources that show that he has notability outside of the book. There was an article put out by his college about past alumni, but predominantly the breadth of coverage has been in relation to his time spent with Strauss. If this is unsuitable as a redirect to the article about the book, then it should just be deleted. There's no independence from the book and his company Real Social Dynamics doesn't seem to have notability either. I'm bringing this to AfD because I wanted a wider spread of opinions and since there's been concern that redirecting wasn't a good idea, if Cook has no notability then the page should be deleted. The previous AfD in 2008's keep arguments mostly centered around the coverage Cook got in relation to The Game and that he'd published a few books. The one previous to that ended as a redirect to his company, which ended up being deleted due to a lack of notability. There's no independent notability here. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to sound like I'm drinking haterade, just that Cook/Durden has no independent notability and if his name can't serve as a redirect to The Game, then we need to establish whether or not he has the independent notability to have an article of his own. The article for Mystery ended up getting deleted and he was far better known as a PUA than Durden was.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per coverage in rather reliable sources listed in the "Further Reading" section, including "The art of seduction" in The Queen University's The Queen's Journal and "The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists" (in which he is mentioned as "Tyler Durden", which is his pen name). The Queen's Journal article is clearly significant coverage of Owen Cook, and The Game has very extensive coverage. If you read the game, you would know that Cook's pseudonym is mentioned on more than SIXTY pages, which is a lot. Owen Cook deserves an independent article, rather than a redirect to his dating advice company, or a merge to The Game. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, that's in relation to the book. What we need to find out is that if Cook/Durden has any notability outside of that. Would he still be notable if we were to ignore that he was heavily mentioned in the book? For example, when it comes to characters in novels, movies, and comics having their own pages, we have to look to see if the character is notable outside of the book series. A good example of a character that has independent notability would be Harry Potter, while a character that doesn't have independent notability would be the any given puppet from the Puppet Master series. The same thing goes for real, actual living people. (The same basic standards of notability apply here.) There's a good many people (authors included) who are not notable outside of their own works, companies, and whatnot. I'm suggesting that while Cook/Durden has been mentioned heavily in the book, that doesn't mean that he has notability outside of it. It just means that he was mentioned heavily in the book. As far as the college article, some might argue that it's not exactly an independent source, but more importantly: if this is the only article that really focuses on Cook/Durden as an individual outside of his Game notability, then that's not enough of a depth of coverage to merit his own article. Just because a person is mentioned in a book does not mean that it gives them notability. It can help push towards notability independent of the subject, but does not guarantee it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as the further reading goes, most of it seems to be in relation to the book. Since none of them seem to direct to an actual article, we have no way of knowing if the articles actually focus on Cook or if they're just about the PUA community in general. Further reading doesn't always focus on the individual and does not always equal to sources that show notability. If you can prove that these articles provide in-depth focus on Cook/Durden, then that'd help the case but it's just as likely that they're just general articles to provide a broader perspective on the idea of pick up artists and the dating schools.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I found copies of some of the FR sources on Cook/Durden's website, which sort of confirms that these were almost all sources that don't really help show independent notability for him. [1]

“Mastering The Game": This is mostly about one guy going to one of the Manhattan locations for Durden's company. It doesn't go in-depth about Durden and he's more of a brief mention. At the very most this could be used to help show notability for the company, but it's not really showing notability for Durden.
“School For Seduction”: This one doesn't even mention Durden, just a class at another branch of the company.
“Men Paying To Learn To Be Appealing ”: Again, doesn't mention Durden at all under either name.

The further reading stories seem to be more about the company and the PUA community and classes in general, so if you could find copies of these stories that aren't on primary sources (such as Durden's website) to prove that they're written the way they're written, it could help show notability for the company. (Many times people quote articles as they are, but it's also rather common for articles to be edited when the subject posts them on their own website. It's a common practice, which is why we can't use Durden's website as a source backing these up. It'd only be usable as a primary source at best.) However, you'd also have to show that there was a depth of coverage, meaning that even if you have a flurry of articles that show up within a short period of time, if the only coverage is within a 3-4 month period then that might not show enough notability for the company since then it'd be going up against the standards of WP:CORP.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well then, how bout this link? [2] It should be reliable, considering that DSR is one of the largest databases for dating advice for men, right? There's also a Times article mentioning Cook in a few sentences. I still stand my case for the Cook article to be kept, as there are adequate citations to meet GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Large websites doesn't always guarantee that it's a reliable source. For example, IMDb isn't usable as a source despite it being such a large and well-used website. Part of this is due to anyone being able to add info, but there's other factors in this as well. What concerns me is that we don't entirely know their vetting process as far as information verification goes. It helps a lot that they have a staff that is supposed to quality check the information given, but that doesn't automatically guarantee that it's something that Wikipedia would consider reliable. My gut reaction is to say no, but I'm going to run this by the reliable sources noticeboard to see what others have to say. Again, being a big or long running site doesn't always mean that it'll be considered reliable. It might just end up that it's a long running and big site. Even if this is considered to be reliable, that still means that we only have two sources that talk about Cook outside of the context of The Game and show any individual notability for him. However I will point out that if this is considered to be a reliable source then this review paired with the other source and the news articles under further reading could be enough to start an article on Love Systems. (Providing we find copies of the further reading articles to prove that what has been pasted on LS's website is what was actually written, that is.)Tokyogirl79 (talk) 11:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I asked, and the consensus was that it wasn't usable as a reliable source because it appears to be mostly information provided by Cook (or someone who works for him or is otherwise affiliated with him) and would be a WP:SPS. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Dating_Skills_Review_reliable.3F Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Of the two references cited, The Game is a primary source, thus cannot contribute to notability, as per WP:BASIC. The futher reading section seems irrelevant, per the above criticism. Autarch (talk) 20:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Davewild (talk) 18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep natable as per above, the game itself is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bellstarr (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book the Game is notable, yes, but is Owen Cook notable outside of his relation to the book? What we're asking here is if Cook has individual notability. Notability is not inherited, so you need to show that he's notable on his own right.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to meet the criteria.Hairy poker monster (talk) 08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most of his coverage has been in the context of the book, outside of which he has no notability. The "further reading" sections in the article are more about the program he started with others than about him, with some of the coverage not even really mentioning him at all beyond a brief mention. I'm not adverse to starting an article about the company, but we don't start articles on people unless they've had extensive coverage about them over a long period of time. Cook has not received that. He got a brief smattering of news articles about him during the Game's initial publication, but very little attention beyond that. The only person from the Game that even remotely comes close to justifying an article based on them was Mystery (having made a business, several books, and hosting a TV show), and even he didn't have enough coverage to show that he warranted an article and he got far more coverage than Cook got. Most of the keep votes seem to stem from Cook's association with The Game and some almost fall into the WP:ILIKEIT category. Cook is just not notable outside of The Game. The small amount of coverage he received was as a result of The Game and was only during a brief point in time. There was no lasting coverage. Look at the article as it is now: the only two sources we have are comprised of an article from Cook's university and The Game. The Game can and should be seen as a primary source, so all we have left is the newspaper article to show that Cook has individual notability. You need to see if Cook is notable outside of his association with The Game, and he fails it. Maybe he'll get more coverage once the movie comes out, but we can't justify keeping an article on the basis that he may one day get this coverage. That's total WP:CRYSTAL. The guy just doesn't have any notability outside of Strauss's The Game. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BIO states "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There's been one news story that's actually been about Cook and not about his business. The other articles have been predominantly about his business, with the focus actually being more on the idea of teaching the art of the pickup than anything else. Like I said, these articles could be used to help form an article about the business, assuming you could find where the articles weren't all written during a short time period (a depth of coverage over a longer time period). I have no problem with an article being written about Cook's business, with his name being a redirect for that. I don't necessarily think that there might be enough out there for his business to where it'd be a sustainable article, but I've no problem with someone trying. I just don't think there's enough notability for an article on Cook himself.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to see The Game as a non-primary source, that's still only two sources. However, because Cook gave Strauss so much input on the dating world in general and other things, it's hard to see it as anything but a primary source and primary sources cannot be used to show notability.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP

He has notability not only over the blogospher but on youtube as well. His company is one of the few financial stable and succesfull Seduction Based firms in existence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.171.232.142 (talk) 05:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

However, being popular in the blogging or youtube world does not translate into Wikipedia notability unless the blogs or youtube videos are by non-involved and notable people who are considered to be reliable sources/authorities per Wikipedia policy. Also, having a successful business does not give notability. It makes it more likely, but that in itself is not notability. If that was the case, there would be a flood of various businessmen and businesses that would have articles.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If they are writing about his book and toss in a few nuggets about his life, you can't dismiss that reliable source biographical information as counting towards WP:GNG merely because the primary motive was to write about his book. Of course, if the bio info is appearing in his book, then that doesn't count toward WP:GNG because it isn't independent of Cook. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2012 (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.