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 no consensus. and none on the horizon. Both sides make good arguments and there's ultimately no consensus to delete this. StarM 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Owen Cook[edit]

Owen Cook (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Delete - fails WP:BIO as there is a lack of independent reliable sources that support notability. Otto4711 (talk) 03:32, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I can only presume this editor is trying to push some kind of point, 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 The Game , Edge Magazine, Men's Health Magazine, The Sunday Telegraph, David DeAngelo programs, The Times, etc etc...). Mathmo ^Talk

• Thanks so much for your assumption of good faith. 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. Otto4711 (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. So in this case notability means making an appearance in a friends book—living in the friend's closet. This notable fact is further backed up by his name being mentioned—in one sentence—in the Times Online piece. Also, he's referenced too in his own 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 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 is mentioned it's just trivial stuff. Note the previous AFD stated the user who created this article (User:Sedcom 'seductive community'?) works for this guy's company.--Celtus (talk) 06:40, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Inadequately sourced BLP, sources aren't reliable. Subject is also at best only marginally notable. RMHED (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as notability is not established by adequate third-party sources. Theseeker4 (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep frivolous deletion - Otto4711 is attacking all current seduction related articles at the moment Sedcom (talk) 22:52, 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 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) 22:42, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep 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 suspect that this --as with similar confusing passages elsewhere in Wikipedia, 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. DGG (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• First, I don't appreciate your saying I don't understand WP:NPOV, 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 WP:BIO and WP:GNG. 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. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Arguments against the article, especially in replies to comments here, are unpersuasive, and I might say, rude. Keep it cool guys. Ryan Delaney ^talk 23:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• And again, the independent reliable sources that are substantively about this person are...? Otto4711 (talk) 05:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• How are you unpersuaded? Notability requires "reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article is hinging upon nothing but his appearance in his friend's book. The two web references are nothing but reviews of that book - one of these only mentions this person's name in passing (WP:BLP1E). 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 Sedcom (talk · contribs). 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.--Celtus (talk) 08:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I presume you know little on this topic as it is very clear from reading the book that Neil Strauss did not 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. Mathmo ^Talk 09:53, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• A simple case of his personal connection with the author. Not an independent source. Very simple.--Celtus (talk) 06:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein had a "personal connection" to Deep Throat and therefore All The President's Men is not a reliable source about the whistleblower. DHowell (talk) 07:05, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Otto4711 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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 each other's guts. Mathmo ^Talk 10:20, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Little independent coverage of him personally in the sources provided, certainly not enough to pass WP:BIO. 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[1] but as far as I was able to check, only one[2] (his own book) relates to him. A WorldCat search does not show a single U.S. library carrying that book[3]. Nsk92 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You will miss 99% of the mentions of him online by only searching for his real name rather than his pseudonym. Mathmo ^Talk 10:26, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in reliable sources including "The art of seduction" in The Queen's Journal and The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists (which covers him as the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"). The Queen's Journal article is clearly significant coverage of Owen Cook, and Otto4711's dismissal of The Game'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. DHowell (talk) 06:55, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Otto4711 (talk) 08:22, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If SIXTY ONE pages is not enough to make you happy, I have to ask how many are needed. All 452 pages?! Mathmo ^Talk 10:17, 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.