202:. The article is actually sourced by blog entries and the subject's own DVDs, which are not reliable sources for purposes of establishing notability. The Strauss book is sourcing that the guy lived in a closet (which hardly makes him notable) and that he supposedly wrote stuff for a company (also doesn't make him notable). The Men's Health article is listed in a "further reading" section and is not linked, nor is it used to source any part of this article. The Times article includes about 3-4 sentences about this guy out of a three-page article. The Edge magazine link appears to be dead and is also not sourcing anything in the article. Again, no independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person.
407:
suspect that this --as with similar confusing passages elsewhere in
Knowledge, is due to the successive alterations to give a more or less favorable tone to the article. I initially adopted a similar approach to these articles as the nominator, but I now have what I think a more objective understanding of NPOV.
373:, 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 nominated most of the similar articles for deletion and have no particular intention to. Your obvious
541:
depart from Owen on good terms. Even more so than this, him and all of Owen's associates were heavily attacked in the book by Neil
Strauss. Your claim that this is just a simple case of an author including mentions of a friend in his book purely because he is friends is incredulous to say the least.
406:
adequate sources for notability. But it needs some editing by someone who doesn't care one way or another about the subject. The section curiously called "background" is incomprehensible without a previous knowledge of the actual background of the various people and publications referred to there. I
235:
blog and another mention in a university paper. And don't forget his DVDs. OK but what about the content of the article? The article states that the guy is most famous for being mentioned in his friend's book. He started a business—which went "overwhelmingly in debt"—and now he's getting out of that
635:
Did you miss the main point of how they were radically opposing each other which lead to the whole downfall of project hollywood? Just because a person is living with another doesn't mean they like them at all, as I'm sure you must know in many cases it can mean the complete opposite as they hate
519:). The attacks of goodfaith on a nominator for pointing this stuff out isn't a counter argument, neither is calling an AFD discussion "rude". Notable should be proved without the aid of a friend's book or an associate writing up your bio.--
431:, especially given the numerous instances where you (as an administrator) have failed to understand relevant policies and guidelines. The nomination does not have anything to do with NPOV. It has to do with notability guidelines
180:, as Otto4711 also nominated RJ (the founder of the seduction community) and the whole category they are in. If you actually read the article you can see there are many multiple sources mentioned (the NY Times bestseller
439:. Since you are claiming that the independent reliable sourcing exists, please specify which sources you believe are both independent of the subject of the article and substantively about the subject of the article.
755:
A story about an alumnus on the college's site raises serious questions about its independence as a source. That Cook's pseudonym is mentioned on 61 pages is hardly impressive given that the book is 452 pages long.
737:'s extensive coverage, including 61 pages of mentions of "Tyler Durden", as "sourcing that the guy lived in a closet and that he supposedly wrote stuff for a company" seems quite disingenuous to me.
721:
83:
78:
581:
This was an investigative journalist getting involved in a community in order to write about it. Saying this is a "personal connection" and therefore not "independent" is like saying
280:
306:
144:
505:). The rest of the references are to his own blog and DVDs. The article was created by someone involved with this person and the 'seduction community', look at his contribs
666:. The name is fairly common so googlesearching is not that easy as it tends to produce a lot of false positives. A googlebooks search for his name gives 269 hits
236:
business to get "self help". Oh, and don't forget he's selling a couple DVDs. So in the end, the sources used are not independent, and even when this guy
73:
385:
issues and blinding you to the requirements for
Knowledge articles. Find the independent reliable sources that are substantially about this person.
670:
617:
If
Woodward and Bernstein had lived in the same house as Deep Throat the way that Strauss and Cook did, I might have to agree with you.
497:
requires "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article is hinging upon nothing but his appearance in his
17:
501:
book. The two web references are nothing but reviews of that book - one of these only mentions this person's name in passing (
227:
book—living in the friend's closet. This notable fact is further backed up by his name being mentioned—in one sentence—in the
778:
765:
746:
697:
684:
640:
626:
608:
572:
546:
528:
488:
470:
448:
418:
394:
356:
339:
321:
295:
270:
253:
211:
167:
56:
111:
106:
516:
115:
98:
49:
797:
36:
693:
You will miss 99% of the mentions of him online by only searching for his real name rather than his pseudonym.
460:
Arguments against the article, especially in replies to comments here, are unpersuasive, and I might say, rude.
796:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
595:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
48:. and none on the horizon. Both sides make good arguments and there's ultimately no consensus to delete this.
468:
673:
710:
537:
I presume you know little on this topic as it is very clear from reading the book that Neil
Strauss did
774:
If SIXTY ONE pages is not enough to make you happy, I have to ask how many are needed. All 452 pages?!
672:(his own book) relates to him. A WorldCat search does not show a single U.S. library carrying that book
465:
715:
662:. Little independent coverage of him personally in the sources provided, certainly not enough to pass
494:
335:
261:
Inadequately sourced BLP, sources aren't reliable. Subject is also at best only marginally notable.
185:
102:
378:
240:
mentioned it's just trivial stuff. Note the previous AFD stated the user who created this article (
761:
622:
484:
444:
390:
207:
163:
347:
frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment
94:
62:
742:
604:
317:
291:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
479:
And again, the independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person are...?
667:
568:
524:
510:
352:
249:
381:, is perhaps clouding your judgment and your interest in the subject is perhaps leading to
680:
502:
366:
331:
266:
177:
586:
461:
428:
374:
377:
in favor of these articles, as evidenced by your user name's being an abbreviation of
757:
730:
663:
618:
480:
440:
436:
432:
414:
386:
382:
370:
203:
199:
159:
155:
738:
600:
582:
313:
287:
132:
775:
694:
637:
590:
564:
543:
520:
506:
348:
245:
241:
189:
676:
262:
158:
as there is a lack of independent reliable sources that support notability.
409:
330:
as notability is not established by adequate third-party sources.
790:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
176:. I can only presume this editor is trying to push some kind of
184:, Edge Magazine, Men's Health Magazine, The Sunday Telegraph,
223:. So in this case notability means making an appearance in a
729:
article is clearly significant coverage of Owen Cook, and
722:
The Game: Penetrating the Secret
Society of Pickup Artists
427:
First, I don't appreciate your saying I don't understand
244:'seductive community'?) works for this guy's company.--
139:
128:
124:
120:
725:(which covers him as the pseudonym "Tyler Durden").
281:
599:is not a reliable source about the whistleblower.
307:list of Living people-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
800:). No further edits should be made to this page.
84:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook (3rd nomination)
79:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook (2nd nomination)
8:
709:per coverage in reliable sources including "
365:I strongly object to your abject failure of
669:but as far as I was able to check, only one
305:: This debate has been included in the
279:: This debate has been included in the
71:
7:
231:piece. Also, he's referenced too in
557:personal connection with the author
69:
188:programs, The Times, etc etc...).
24:
589:had a "personal connection" to
74:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
779:10:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
766:08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
747:06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
698:10:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
685:01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
641:10:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
627:08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
609:07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
573:06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
547:09:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
529:08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
489:05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
471:23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
449:01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
419:00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
395:22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
357:22:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
340:18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
57:01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
322:22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
296:22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
271:19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
254:06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
212:06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
168:03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
369:and your appalling lack of
817:
493:How are you unpersuaded?
793:Please do not modify it.
371:assumption of good faith
200:assumption of good faith
198:Thanks so much for your
32:Please do not modify it.
596:All The President's Men
68:AfDs for this article:
555:A simple case of his
711:The art of seduction
727:The Queen's Journal
716:The Queen's Journal
636:each other's guts.
379:seduction community
561:independent source
44:The result was
324:
310:
298:
284:
808:
795:
733:'s dismissal of
563:. Very simple.--
311:
301:
285:
275:
142:
136:
118:
54:
34:
816:
815:
811:
810:
809:
807:
806:
805:
804:
798:deletion review
791:
138:
109:
93:
90:
88:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
814:
812:
803:
802:
786:
785:
784:
783:
782:
781:
769:
768:
750:
749:
703:
702:
701:
700:
688:
687:
656:
655:
654:
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
647:
646:
645:
644:
643:
630:
629:
612:
611:
593:and therefore
587:Carl Bernstein
576:
575:
550:
549:
532:
531:
491:
474:
473:
454:
453:
452:
451:
422:
421:
400:
399:
398:
397:
360:
359:
342:
325:
299:
273:
256:
217:
216:
215:
214:
193:
192:
186:David DeAngelo
149:
148:
89:
87:
86:
81:
76:
70:
67:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
813:
801:
799:
794:
788:
787:
780:
777:
773:
772:
771:
770:
767:
763:
759:
754:
753:
752:
751:
748:
744:
740:
736:
732:
728:
724:
723:
718:
717:
712:
708:
705:
704:
699:
696:
692:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
678:
674:
671:
668:
665:
661:
658:
657:
642:
639:
634:
633:
632:
631:
628:
624:
620:
616:
615:
614:
613:
610:
606:
602:
598:
597:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
578:
577:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
552:
551:
548:
545:
540:
536:
535:
534:
533:
530:
526:
522:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
490:
486:
482:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
469:
467:
463:
459:
456:
455:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
411:
405:
402:
401:
396:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
364:
363:
362:
361:
358:
354:
350:
346:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
323:
319:
315:
308:
304:
300:
297:
293:
289:
282:
278:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
234:
230:
226:
222:
219:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
196:
195:
194:
191:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
171:
170:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
146:
141:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
792:
789:
734:
726:
720:
714:
706:
659:
594:
583:Bob Woodward
560:
556:
538:
513:
498:
466:Ryan Delaney
462:Keep it cool
457:
408:
403:
344:
327:
302:
276:
258:
237:
232:
229:Times Online
228:
224:
220:
181:
173:
151:
150:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
591:Deep Throat
242:User:Sedcom
495:Notability
332:Theseeker4
559:. Not an
383:ownership
314:• Gene93k
288:• Gene93k
95:Owen Cook
63:Owen Cook
758:Otto4711
735:The Game
731:Otto4711
619:Otto4711
517:contribs
503:WP:BLP1E
499:friend's
481:Otto4711
441:Otto4711
387:Otto4711
367:civility
204:Otto4711
182:The Game
160:Otto4711
154:- fails
145:View log
739:DHowell
601:DHowell
429:WP:NPOV
233:his own
225:friends
112:protect
107:history
776:Mathmo
695:Mathmo
664:WP:BIO
660:Delete
638:Mathmo
565:Celtus
544:Mathmo
521:Celtus
507:Sedcom
464:guys.
437:WP:GNG
433:WP:BIO
349:Sedcom
328:Delete
259:Delete
246:Celtus
221:Delete
190:Mathmo
156:WP:BIO
152:Delete
140:delete
116:delete
713:" in
677:Nsk92
263:RMHED
178:point
143:) – (
133:views
125:watch
121:links
52:StarM
16:<
762:talk
743:talk
719:and
707:Keep
681:talk
623:talk
605:talk
585:and
569:talk
525:talk
511:talk
485:talk
458:Keep
445:talk
435:and
415:talk
404:Keep
391:talk
375:bias
353:talk
345:Keep
336:talk
318:talk
303:Note
292:talk
277:Note
267:talk
250:talk
208:talk
174:Keep
164:talk
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
539:not
410:DGG
312:--
309:.
286:--
283:.
764:)
745:)
683:)
675:.
625:)
607:)
571:)
527:)
487:)
447:)
417:)
393:)
355:)
338:)
320:)
294:)
269:)
252:)
238:is
210:)
166:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
760:(
741:(
679:(
621:(
603:(
567:(
523:(
514:·
509:(
483:(
443:(
413:(
389:(
351:(
334:(
316:(
290:(
265:(
248:(
206:(
162:(
147:)
137:(
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.