297:. 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.
448:
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
Knowledge 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.)
241:
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.
689:
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.
657:
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
358:
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
275:
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.
316:
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.
346:“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.
661:
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
656:
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
315:
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
748:
However, being popular in the blogging or youtube world does not translate into
Knowledge notability unless the blogs or youtube videos are by non-involved and notable people who are considered to be reliable sources/authorities per Knowledge policy. Also, having a successful business does not give
688:
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.
357:
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
240:
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
274:
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
256:
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
447:
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
703:
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
428:
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.
582:
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
465:. 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
666:
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
205:
662:
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
237:
105:
100:
339:. 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.
749:
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.
378:
724:
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.
199:
160:
770:- 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
400:
165:
95:
774:
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
470:
731:
567:
17:
787:
758:
739:
713:
698:
680:
647:
626:
592:
571:
539:
510:
481:
457:
438:
414:
392:
371:
325:
306:
284:
266:
250:
78:
643:
133:
128:
220:
137:
434:
280:
187:
120:
806:
40:
735:
639:
349:“School For Seduction”: This one doesn't even mention Durden, just a class at another branch of the company.
181:
430:
276:
802:
754:
709:
694:
676:
588:
477:
453:
367:
321:
302:
262:
246:
36:
177:
783:
727:
555:
559:
124:
563:
213:
71:
535:
227:
352:“Men Paying To Learn To Be Appealing ”: Again, doesn't mention Durden at all under either name.
116:
84:
668:
658:
506:
410:
388:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
801:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
750:
705:
690:
672:
604:
584:
520:
473:
449:
363:
317:
298:
258:
242:
65:
779:
498:
426:
617:
359:
193:
775:
771:
685:
531:
466:
53:
502:
406:
384:
154:
59:
340:
607:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
523:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
671:. The guy just doesn't have any notability outside of Strauss's The Game.
471:
Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_Dating_Skills_Review_reliable.3F
501:. The futher reading section seems irrelevant, per the above criticism.
257:
getting deleted and he was far better known as a PUA than Durden was.
497:
is a primary source, thus cannot contribute to notability, as per
795:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
52:. No valid policy backing those requesting to keep this
150:
146:
142:
212:
551:natable as per above, the game itself is notable.
614:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
530:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
379:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
809:). No further edits should be made to this page.
236:I'd originally merged this into the article for
106:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook (3rd nomination)
101:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook (2nd nomination)
493:as non-notable. Of the two references cited,
226:
8:
401:list of Authors-related deletion discussions
399:Note: This debate has been included in the
377:Note: This debate has been included in the
398:
376:
778:because it isn't independent of Cook. --
93:
7:
293:However, that's in relation to the
91:
24:
425:Well then, how bout this link?
96:Articles for deletion/Owen Cook
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
638:Seems to meet the criteria.
826:
788:06:40, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
593:01:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
572:20:57, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
540:18:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
511:20:14, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
482:16:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
458:11:00, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
439:06:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
415:15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
393:15:52, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
372:08:08, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
326:07:16, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
307:07:13, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
285:06:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
267:05:51, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
251:05:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
79:20:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
798:Please do not modify it.
759:10:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
740:05:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
714:16:13, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
699:10:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
681:10:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
648:08:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
627:05:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
90:AfDs for this article:
640:Hairy poker monster
48:The result was
730:comment added by
629:
625:
575:
558:comment added by
542:
431:Bonkers The Clown
417:
404:
395:
382:
277:Bonkers The Clown
77:
817:
800:
742:
624:
622:
615:
613:
609:
574:
552:
529:
525:
405:
383:
231:
230:
216:
168:
158:
140:
74:
68:
57:
34:
825:
824:
820:
819:
818:
816:
815:
814:
813:
807:deletion review
796:
725:
618:
616:
602:
553:
518:
173:
164:
131:
115:
112:
110:
88:
72:
66:
62:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
823:
821:
812:
811:
791:
790:
764:
763:
762:
761:
732:76.171.232.142
719:
718:
717:
716:
701:
683:
651:
650:
632:
631:
630:
611:
610:
599:
598:
597:
596:
595:
577:
576:
545:
544:
543:
527:
526:
515:
514:
513:
487:
486:
485:
484:
460:
442:
441:
419:
418:
396:
374:
354:
353:
350:
347:
343:
342:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
310:
309:
288:
287:
269:
234:
233:
170:
111:
109:
108:
103:
98:
92:
89:
87:
82:
60:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
822:
810:
808:
804:
799:
793:
792:
789:
785:
781:
777:
773:
769:
766:
765:
760:
756:
752:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
741:
737:
733:
729:
722:
715:
711:
707:
702:
700:
696:
692:
687:
684:
682:
678:
674:
670:
665:
660:
655:
654:
653:
652:
649:
645:
641:
637:
634:
633:
628:
623:
621:
612:
608:
606:
601:
600:
594:
590:
586:
581:
580:
579:
578:
573:
569:
565:
561:
557:
550:
547:
546:
541:
537:
533:
528:
524:
522:
517:
516:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
492:
489:
488:
483:
479:
475:
472:
468:
464:
461:
459:
455:
451:
446:
445:
444:
443:
440:
436:
432:
427:
424:
421:
420:
416:
412:
408:
402:
397:
394:
390:
386:
380:
375:
373:
369:
365:
361:
356:
355:
351:
348:
345:
344:
341:
338:
335:
334:
327:
323:
319:
314:
313:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
291:
290:
289:
286:
282:
278:
273:
270:
268:
264:
260:
255:
254:
253:
252:
248:
244:
239:
229:
225:
222:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
201:
198:
195:
192:
189:
186:
183:
179:
176:
175:Find sources:
171:
167:
162:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
107:
104:
102:
99:
97:
94:
86:
83:
81:
80:
75:
69:
63:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
797:
794:
767:
726:— Preceding
723:
720:
663:
635:
619:
603:
554:— Preceding
548:
519:
494:
490:
462:
422:
336:
294:
271:
235:
223:
217:
209:
202:
196:
190:
184:
174:
49:
47:
31:
28:
751:Tokyogirl79
706:Tokyogirl79
704:notability.
691:Tokyogirl79
673:Tokyogirl79
585:Tokyogirl79
474:Tokyogirl79
450:Tokyogirl79
364:Tokyogirl79
318:Tokyogirl79
299:Tokyogirl79
259:Tokyogirl79
243:Tokyogirl79
200:free images
780:Uzma Gamal
669:WP:CRYSTAL
659:WP:ILIKEIT
620:Sandstein
67:have a cup
803:talk page
560:Bellstarr
407:• Gene93k
385:• Gene93k
117:Owen Cook
85:Owen Cook
37:talk page
805:or in a
728:unsigned
605:Relisted
568:contribs
556:unsigned
532:Davewild
521:Relisted
499:WP:BASIC
495:The Game
238:The Game
161:View log
39:or in a
768:Comment
664:outside
503:Autarch
423:Comment
360:WP:CORP
337:Comment
206:WPÂ refs
194:scholar
134:protect
129:history
776:WP:GNG
772:WP:GNG
686:WP:BIO
583:right.
491:Delete
467:WP:SPS
463:Update
178:Google
138:delete
61:Coffee
50:delete
721:KEEP
221:JSTOR
182:books
166:Stats
155:views
147:watch
143:links
73:essay
16:<
784:talk
755:talk
736:talk
710:talk
695:talk
677:talk
644:talk
636:Keep
589:talk
564:talk
549:Keep
536:talk
507:talk
478:talk
454:talk
435:talk
411:talk
389:talk
368:talk
322:talk
303:talk
295:book
281:talk
272:Keep
263:talk
247:talk
214:FENS
188:news
151:logs
125:talk
121:edit
228:TWL
163:•
159:– (
76://
70://
64://
54:BLP
786:)
757:)
738:)
712:)
697:)
679:)
646:)
591:)
570:)
566:•
538:)
509:)
480:)
469:.
456:)
437:)
413:)
403:.
391:)
381:.
370:)
324:)
305:)
283:)
265:)
249:)
208:)
153:|
149:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
58:—
56:.
782:(
753:(
734:(
708:(
693:(
675:(
642:(
587:(
562:(
534:(
505:(
476:(
452:(
433:(
409:(
387:(
366:(
362:.
320:(
301:(
279:(
261:(
245:(
232:)
224:·
218:·
210:·
203:·
197:·
191:·
185:·
180:(
172:(
169:)
157:)
119:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.