This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
I don't know what your previous efforts looked like, but this article looks fine to me. The variety of outside refs convinces me of notability. Regards. Plazak (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Sordid but legit. KDS4444Talk 13:26, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Grayfell, why are you dissecting this article and removing references that previous editors approved? Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Because the article has serious sourcing and promotional problems. This has already been explained to death on the article's two deletion discussions and the deletion review. The sources might be slightly better than they were then, but they are still very, very poor. The level of promotional puff and unsourced trivia is way, way too high. You do not own the article, and neither does anyone else. Wikipedia isn't a platform for promotion, and this isn't a glorified resume hosting service. Grayfell (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I would beg to differ. Most of the content on this 2015 article is totally different than the content that was on the article that was active from 2007-2009, and deleted in August 2009. And I never said, or implied, that I "own" this article. Chicago Smooth (talk) 23:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As a glance at the article's history shows, this article is largely based on the one you created in 2009 or 2010, after your first two versions were deleted. The way to address these problems is to provide (here on the talk page) reliable, secondary sources for the large quantity of unsourced or poorly sourced content. Grayfell (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
As long as your edits are done with the objective of "cleaning up" the article, making it more neutral, and removing the "promotional advertisement" type fluff, I have no problem with your edits. I just do not like "contentious editing," and some editors in the past have edited articles with an underlying tone of 'contentiousness' that I felt was unnecessary. Thank you. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I am removing the following quote from the article, because it does not appear in the source given, nor can I find any other legit-looking source for it online. A quote on the topic of PUAs does appear in the source given (which I'm adding to the article in place of what I'm removing, since it makes the same point). If someone can provide proof that Currie ever said the following, it could be re-added. Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
The main weakness in most of the behavior of the typical pickup artist (PUA) is they tend to be deeply afraid of harsh, subjective criticisms from women, as well as abrupt rejection. When you are afraid of negative responses and/or harsh criticism, that puts you into Mode Two behavior; when you are afraid of being rejected and/or indefinitely ignored, that puts you into Mode Three behavior. PUA's are manipulative in their behavior, which in turn, opens them up to be easily manipulated."