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 delete - identical material contained in Concepts in the seduction community. KrakatoaKatie 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replication value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

• Delete nn neologism Mayalld (talk) 06:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability's in the eye of the beholder. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 07:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. No, it isn't. Notability is in here. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope, policy is descriptive, not prescriptive, and merely reflects what AfDs have typically done, not what they must do. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Rwiggum (^Talk/_Contrib) 14:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Topic is notable, but only achieves notability through its creator Mystery (pickup artist). Consequently, it should be merged with Mystery (pickup artist) or Mystery Method. --SecondSight (talk) 20:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• strong delete this one is actually not notable, and the term is not exclusively used in this context, so only one article in WP:RS about the term is actually about this. [1]. Sticky Parkin 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh oh, I think I'm seeing some systemic bias creeping in here, Gina. Aldrich Hanssen (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only insomuch as, in my humble opinion, wikipedia strives to represent consensus reality. Sticky Parkin 17:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete technical term in a small community ,used with a rather eccentric meaning; has no context outside it, and the possibility of confusion. DGG (talk) 17:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - niche community term. At best merge it into one comprehensive 'seduction' article. Rob Banzai (talk) 19:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, a bit of useful content there to merge elsewhere but at the point it probably lacks enough to have any chance at making a complete article by itself. Mathmo ^Talk 10:12, 13 August 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.