Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.59.194.107 (talk) at 13:54, 7 November 2008 (→‎Nick Savoy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< November 5 Deletion review archives: 2008 November November 7 >

6 November 2008

Pligg.

Pligg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I don't know if im doing this correctly.. But I want to write a review on the Pligg CMS (http://www.pligg.com/). Found out about it http://webdevnews.net/tag/pligg/ then set it up http://www.howtoforge.com/news_voting_with_pligg Thanks this would be my first article. I found it to be locked, went to the IRC channel they redirected me to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMcFarts (talk • contribs)

Europa Corp.

Europa Corp. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

This company is notable film production and distribution company for France and Japanese market. Pierre411 (talk) 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Savoy

Nick Savoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

He is a prominent member of the seduction community with reliable outside sources to verify. His page conforms the standards of Wikipedia, better than the other seduction gurus' pages. The deletion of this page was done for invalid reasons other than just looking at its history of the page. The current is new and updated to meet the WP standards. After approval of two administrators, the page went live. Can anyone revive this page? Camera123456 (talk) 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for that. I should have pointed it out. However, I do want to emphasize that this is NOT challenging the original AfD. Rather, this is a new article that (in theory) fixed the problems with the original one, such as linking directly to third-party sources. Also, it takes into account all of the new media pieces (FHM, Maxim, Globe and Mail, Radar, etc.) from the past 8 or so months since the original article was deleted. Thanks and sorry for the confusion.Camera123456 (talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted) pending the presentation of independent, reliably sourced evidence. This was a complicated close and it would have been helpful if the closer had put more of his/her analysis in the closing comments. As is, we are left to reinterpret the closure rationale ourselves.
    In my own analysis of the closure, I discounted several of the comments as either deliberately duplicative or suspiciously new users. The comments of established users all focused on the lack of sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. None of those arguing to keep the page provided answers to those concerns. (Some examples of passing references and human interest news stories in which he was used as an example or source were offered but, from the comments of the participants, those were not considered sufficient. For the purposes of establishing notability, sources need to be primarily about the subject, not merely examples used in an article about a larger topic.) No new evidence has been offered here. I find no process problems with the closure of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. I was contacted via e-mail to assist in restoring this article, which was supposedly deleted for no reason (now I find it had been through AFD). Arriving at it taking a read (I found it to be already here at DRV), I have read the rationale for retention, as well as the previous AFD and the comments above. I fail to see notability in this person. Pending a major rewrite and a lot of sourcing, I cannot see this article being kept. In addition, the article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. I would go so far as to say these comments also apply to Love Systems, but that article is not in question here. ^demon[omg plz] 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I'm sorry, I should have been more precise here. The original article several months ago was deleted because of lack of notable sources. This was in part because the original authors, of which I was one, linked to major media sources through Savoy's own bio page (saved me the work of searching for all of them). It turned out that this looked like a lot of self-published sources, so this time around, I made sure to link to the original sources themselves. In addition, there have also been a lot more media appearances including the headline story for the Dr Phil Show, Spike TV, two stories in the Globe and Mail, Maxim, Radar Magazine, a regular monthly column in FHM Online, a two-part extensive newscast on Fox News, consulting to the VH-1 Show The_Pick-up_Artist_(TV_series), as well as a smattering of more minor publications, and so on. I spoke with some Admins before reviving this project, and tried to be careful to do it right this time. I also had some conflict with one of the Admins who i thought was being unhelpful and rude when I was first new to Wikipedia, who is the person who deleted it again this time around. I don't want to get into another fight, but this is what happened on his talk page this time. It seems like the page of "Nick Savoy" got deleted. I've modified the page so it met the guidelines of wikipedia, and after approval of several wikipedia contributors (Mathmo and SecondSight), the page went live. The page was not an exact replica of the old "Nick Savoy" page, but modified so it met the standards and cleaned up. Could you please revive the page? Camera123456 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) * He still sounds like a thoroughly nauseating guy. Take him to deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC). I didn't think that an opinion of whether someone is "nauseating" was supposed to matter one way or another. In addition, Nick Savoy has been listed as a prominent member of the seduction community (Seduction_community) and is referenced on several other pages - not by me - including mystery method and publications in the seduction community (which I can't seem to find right now). The page is a work in a progress, I pop in every couple of weeks, but there is some negative stuff and a controversy section and I'm looking to add more. Finally, to respond to Rossami's specific comment, most of the major media pieces referenced (Dr Phil, Radar, one of the Globe and Mail pieces, Fox News, etc are about Savoy and Love Systems, not general interest pieces. Finally, I would compare all of the third-party notable sources here to other pages such as carlos_xuma, zan_perion, pickup_101, Juggler_(pick-up_artist), Owen_cook, etc. Not that two wrongs make a right, but these people are all listed as "prominent members of the seduction community" and appear to have less third party notability.Camera123456 (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Undelete - looking at the list of Selected Media Appearences, it seems he hits Notability at this point. Seems like the last debate really came down to that, and a lack of notable sources. I like to think of Wikipedia in terms of Use Cases - why are people using it? In general, to further research a topic they've heard about. Several radio interviews, a couple of TV interviews, numerous print articles - at this point, there's going to be a fair number of people who want to know more, and a publically editable article from a trusted source seems like a good start. Honestly? The article could do with a LOT of work - perhaps that could be made a condition of the undeletion. But "article needs work" is not the same as "keep deleted". Someone talked previously about a 'Walled Garden' - a small amount of research suggests that this is either laziness or inability to find the original sources where the references link back to the Love Systems site. Again - a sign the article needs work, rather than a sign that it should be nuked. WoodenBuddha (talk) 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete - I'm with WoodenBuddha on this point. At the last deletion, the point was that the links were all pointing to just one source so it lended no credibility. In addition, no third-party notability was enforced at that point. However, the new page strictly follows the notability and third-party sources to verify it's notability. If the articles needs some editing, please edit the article with notes that it needs to be edited, but don't delete it. Gives others an opportunity to edit the page so it does 100% comply to the WP standards. Undelete. Coaster7 (talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, has had many media appearances in recent times (for instance Dr Phil etc). Mathmo Talk 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The article, as explained already by Camera123456, has been rewritten to address the concerns stated in the original AfD. The new article cites several sources that more than address WP:N. Some of the specific information in the article could use citations, but that's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. From reading the history on this one, it really sounds like there's a specific admin with an axe to grind, rather than any legit argument to delete. --Tkrpata (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete I posted some cleanup points that are likely important to this discussion in the talk section, but there are other points that should be added. From the various appearances it is clear that Savoy is one of the central figures in the Seduction Community, although there are sections of the page that include a little too much marketing information on products, instead of focus on his contributions to community knowledge. The court case directly between Savoy and Mystery of VH1, which is talked about on the Mystery Method Corp page, should be added as that can be independently verified through court documents through sites like justia.com. Although in general there are few good primary sources in this industry, it is important to maintain a reliable repository of information on the major persons in the community as best we can. Savoy is one of the few figures who has any recognition outside of amateur blogs. Passion8 (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Wow, I really appreciate the feedback. I was so proud of everything I'd done so far, I had no idea how much was left to go. It's great to get so many experienced wiki editors in here to help make this page (if it survives) excellent. I'm excited about refining, adding more specific knowledge contributions, copying or summarizing the MM controversy section, and so on. I'm going to make this page perfect before I build any other pages though :) Camera123456 (talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete per Tkrpata. Article is improved to the point of being policy compatible. I don't understand why some editors don't think it is notable, because I am seeing a bunch of sources conferring notable in the article, plain as the light of day. I can only guess that those editors scrolled straight to the References section, and missed Select Media Appearances section. I will quote it here:
    • FHM Online Article [1]
    • Appearance on Dr Phil episode "Women Beware" [2]
    • Games Radar Article [3]
    • Spike TV [4]
    • Maxim.com Article [5]
    • Right Wing News Interview [6]
    • Interviewed by CBS Radio [7]
    • The Ranger Online Article [8]
    • Interview with Brink Magazine (Hong Kong) [9]
    • Quoted in the Globe & Mail [10]
    • WWWT radio interview [11]
The problem is that these sources (which include appearances in national news and TV) aren't properly incorporated into the article, while only one of the current sources actually referenced is a reliable source, which may make the subject appear less notable than he actually is. This is a problem with the way the article is written (in addition to some original research and tone issues), not with the existence of this article. The solution is for the article to be undeleted and improvement continued. The sources above should be cited as references in the article, rather than being in a Select Media Appearances section. Primary editor seems enthusiastic about improving the page and making it policy-compatible, and it's a shame that he appears to have been bitten --SecondSight (talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete The articles needs some cleanup but the main editors seem enthusiastic in improving the article. There's no need to delete this article, since the third-party sources show his creditability and notability. Improvement in writing and style is necessary to make it look more like an objective Wikipedia page (seems like the editors have been working on it meanwhile since the deletion review). No need to delete this article.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_November_6&oldid=250234042"