Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ross Jeffries (2nd 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. arguments for deletion based on notability have been refuted via evidence of RS coverage. Subject is notable by apparent consensus. While Consensus can change, it doesn't appear that it has. StarM 01:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Jeffries

Delete - fails WP:BIO and the subject of the article has asked that it be deleted. Sources noted are not substantively about the subject and there do not appear to be such sources. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, last time this article was put up for deletion it only got one delete vote and all the rest were Keeps. Should go the same way this time, as he is clearly notable as one of the founders (arguably the founder) of the seduction community. Mathmo ^Talk 04:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the reliable sources that support the notion that he is notable are...? Otto4711 (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. RMHED (talk) 19:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:11, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:48, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly object to your abject failure of civility and your appalling lack of assumption of good faith, not to mention your attempt to color this nomination with falsehoods. I am not "attacking" anything. I am reviewing these articles and searching for sources that substantiate them before nomination. I have not, for example, nominated nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious bias in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of seduction community, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to ownership issues and blinding you to the requirements for Wikipedia articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I always assume good faith as my first instinct, however when I find obvious apparent reason to no longer assume the best of a person in that there is an innocent explanation then it would be wrong for me to carry on being blind to what is happening. Mathmo ^Talk 05:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it's easier to hurl false accusations than it is to defend an indefensible article. Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Frankly, of all the various branches of pseudo-psychology, I find the seduction community the most distasteful, and I heartily wish it were not notable, that the social and psychological conditions that lead people to pay any attention to it did not exist, and that the followers and leaders in it had other approaches to life altogether. There is in many contexts a lot to be said for giving them the minimum publicity. But in the present context, we are a contemporary encyclopedia, and need to document the world as it is. He's notable as an author and a speaker, and the sources are there to show it. The success of his books alone is sufficient for notability. I do not doubt he is unhappy with the article,for the current version is somewhat biased against him -- earlier versions have had very different biases, and i in fact challenged an earlier version myself on its talk page as predominantly self-advertising. This is yet another good example of why we should not give the wishes of the subject of the article any consideration whatsoever in a decision about it, and why blp policy should be changed to absolutely prohibit doing so. It is a way by which they can censor articles to force only the ones favorable to them to remain. This one needs some editing back to NPOV, yes, but certainly not removal. DGG (talk) 23:01, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, the article does not meet any of the speedy keep criteria. Second, I have not suggested removing all discussion of the "seduction community" from Wikipedia. I have merely stated that articles related to that topic, like all Wikipedia articles, need to meet the relevant policies and guidelines, and suggested that this one does not. The sources listed in the article are simply not substantively about this particular person and he does not appear to meet the criteria set forth at WP:CREATIVE. The only possible guideline he meets there is The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors and frankly from my reviewing these articles and in searching for sources I find the "seduction community" to be so incestuous that I have an extremely difficult time applying that criterion (which strikes me as more geared toward academics in the first place) to anyone involved in it. They are all constantly referencing each other and accepting that each of these people think that the others are "important" for purposes of notability is a circular path into a walled garden. Again, let's see some independent reliable sources that are substantively about this particular person. Otto4711 (talk) 23:36, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are not the same person as the last user who was going on about this conspiracy theory of walled garden and thus trying to delete off every seduction community article? Should I be requesting a checkuser, as this person is a known Sockpuppeteer. Mathmo ^Talk 11:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to request whatever you'd like. Once you figure out that I'm not whoever you think I am, I assume that you'll apologize for defaming me, right? Otto4711 (talk) 13:49, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not defaming you, I was simply asking you a question based on a striking observation. Mathmo ^Talk 15:07, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Ross Jeffries is creepy, and I want articles about creepy people to be on Wikipedia. Therefore, I vote to Keep. Thugz Without Undiez (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Above user's only contribution is to this discussion. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note: AGF, MF. Thugz Without Undiez (talk) 02:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Clearly notable based on reliable published sources. 32 hits on Google News Archive include "Getting Screwed" in Metro Silicon Valley, "Dating game turns ugly" in The Guardian/Observer, and Care For Some Sleaze? Operators Are Standing By in The Seattle Times, and much more significant, non-trivial coverage. Sky Newswire says he is "known as the father of the seduction community". PopMatters says he is "rumored to be the inspiration for Tom Cruise’s character Frank T.J. Mackey in the 1999 film Magnolia." This guy's been on several TV talk shows, and hundreds of radio talk shows. Sorry, but you don't get to seek this much publicity and then complain you're not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. To prove notability beyond all doubt, he is featured prominently in the New York Times bestseller The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. DHowell (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Further comment I do not understand how the nominator could have looked at the cited sources and seriously say "Sources noted are not substantively about the subject and there do not appear to be such sources." The Guardian/Observer article was already cited and is about a court case between him and R. Don Steele, so is at least half about him, and mentions interviews in Playboy, Rolling Stone and late-night television (i.e. evidence of more reliable source coverage). The Houston Press article devotes four paragraphs to Jeffries, as well as an additional paragraph about the same lawsuit. DHowell (talk) 02:19, 13 November 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.