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. Secret ^account 14:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Lyons[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Most of the sources are blogs and dead links, making it not notable enough and lacking credit for an article. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 01:41, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have added some better references and removed some blogs. There are references on NBC, Fox News, The Independent, Channel 4, CTV, The Mirror, The Sun and AskMen. There are more references in print material such as TimeOut, ITV, FHM The Daily Express etc. would you like me to find them? I didn't think they would be as useful as they are not accessible from the internet, but I can try and dig them up. I have left on some of the blogs as they are notable blogs within the seduction community, and for the technical aspect of seduction mainstream media tends not to cover it. GrowYourGame, Seduction Chronicles and Thundercat are the blogs, and for the events I have included the reference to the event such as 21 Convention and Real Man Conference, is that an issue? I have improved the tone of this article as well, but please let me know if there are still objections to it. DRosin (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- saw the dead links now and have updated them DRosin (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Very notable within seduction community, voted number 1 recently. I also can't find any dead links. Ace4545 (talk) 13:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ace4545 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Sadly, keep DRosin's edits make clear that this guy does have significant coverage in normally reliable sources. Ray^Talk 19:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Delete He is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. There are sources that are not considered reliable sources, like the blogs of Seduction Chronicles, Thundercat, ripped YouTube videos, Bristol Lair, and it has some dead links. It seems like Ace4545 is a sock-puppet because all his edits were as of Nov 25 in the hope saving this article. Where is the source of being #1? #1 of what? Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Handrem (talk • contribs) 03:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Strongly delete I have no idea who this guy is but it seems like a self-proclaimed seduction expert. Not notable enough and lacking reliable sources. Guys like Mystery and Neil Strauss are well-known, but not this self-proclaimed person. Coaster7 (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Delete I'm pretty active in the seduction community and this guys is not really well-known in the small seduction community. Like pointed above, the sources are not credible with interviews (not credible reliable source, must be at least secondary) and blogs claiming some fame. Camera123456 (talk) 04:56, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Ray. It is unfortunate that the seduction community is on Wikipedia, but from my dabbling I have heard of this guy a lot and the sources seem fine. begrudgingly keep. Actually surprised the coverage these guys get with the independent, nbc, bbc etc. 137.73.68.56 (talk) 12:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 137.73.68.56 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Strongly Keep After looking at this, Adam Lyons is especially notable in the UK where he has been featured/interviewed in national publications like The News of The World, Daily Mirror, The Sun and FHM in his role as a dating coach (rather than as part of the "seduction community"). He is also a regular contributor to AskMen.com. Most recently in the media; http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/2702053/Taking-girls-to-HMV-helps-get-them-into-bed.html (was a full page in the biggest selling newspaper in the UK). Are the people calling for deletion doing so because they are competitors, or because they are wanting to make wikipedia better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ukphysicsgeek (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— Ukphysicsgeek (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Endorse closure I was contacted via e-mail to assist in restoring this article. Attempts to save this article have even more made this article misuse sources and crossing WP:NPOV. The claim of being #1 (of what?) references to an article that has nothing do with it and cannot be verified. The seduction community is such a small niche and does not constitute any significance. Blogs do not count as significant, even if they are considered well-known within a small niche. Outsiders cannot verify this and thus is not reliable. The article relies a lot on these sources and the events coverage is not sufficient either (organized by small unknown organizations). If these events were organized by companies that can be looked up on Wikipedia or some other reliable source, that would advocate more as a reliable source. Plus it seems that more sock puppets are trying to influence the decision making here. All the blogs, websites, and sock and sleeper accounts (per Handrem) do not add up to sufficient Wikipedia reliable source material to overcome the AfD deletion resions. I fail to see notability in this person. In addition, the article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. Xandrus (talk) 18:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be noted that Ace4545 could be a sock puppet as the user was created only recently. Also Handrem, Coaster7 and Camera123456 are currently being investigated for being sock puppets of each other, as is Xandrus. UKphysicsgeek seems to be an obvious sock puppet too. That aside, can someone explain how being on Fox, NBC, Channel 4, The Independent, FHM, and Timeout is not an indication of notability? I have tried to minimize using blogs in the references, but I think they add some good context. Thundercat's, Seduction Chronicles and Bristol Lair are some of the main blogs within the seduction community, and Bristol Lair and Thundercat's are mentioned in Neil Strauss's book The Game. In my opinion there is enough for this article to be kept, but if others feel strongly that the few blog sources have a negative impact then we should just change them. I really don't think this article is worth deleting, though obviously I am bias because I created it. I think it is interesting that the only user who has contributed who has no obvious interest in this article, Ray, voted to keep it. Anyway, if you think I should remove the blog references, please let me know, I think the Talk page on this would be appropriate so we don't distract from the main bit. DRosin (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lyons has a reasonable amount of traditional media coverage, has a strong web presence and seems to be relevant to the seduction community. I'm not sure whether the blogs should be cited at all and the article could still use work, but I believe he is sufficiently notable. Shockeroo (talk) 21:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I have been studying the seduction community for the past 12 months and there is considerable evidence of notability: the Fox, NBC, Channel 4, The Independent, FHM, and Timeout features as indicated above. These are established companies with world-wide coverage, and verifying with them is possible, and should be actioned. Adam Lyons has a significant web present also. The seduction community (the blogs, websites, forums, training seminars, pick-up artists etc) make pronouncements about this or that pick up artists as being number 1 or number 2, but in the absence of any clear criteria or ranking system, or formal body overseeing the rankings, it's just opinion and I can see why it ill fits the encyclopaedia criteria as being noteworthy/verifiable. However, references to blogs, and other offending sources can be removed/replaced to fit with policy. There is work to be done here to make the article come up to standard, but it appears that the article creator is happy to do this and should be given the time to do so. Several of the comments suggesting deletion are clearly written by individuals with motive to secure deletion in their own interest rather than that of wikipedia or its neutral users - myself included. Overall, the article clearly needs work, paying close attention to the wikipedia criteria, so that it reads like a proper encyclopaedia entry about a note-worthy subject. Deletion is clearly not the correct option here. I am not sure how I am supposed to reference my comment. My name is Stephen Turner, I work in higher education surrounded by encyclopaedias, academic writing etc, so I think I know what I am talking about. See sense, get the article creator to improve the article, don't delete it. 28 November 2009. Time 13.07—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.25.249.235 (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 86.25.249.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep! Adam is the most well known and the best pickup artist. His fame says it all that he needs to be on Wikipedia. With all the sources and interviews he has done he should be on Wikipedia. He is the real deal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.205.130.188 (talk) 19:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 166.205.130.188 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Comment Wikipedia is built on having good faith and neutral point of view with no conflict of interests. However, with all these anonymous and sock puppet accounts being made to endorse to keep this article makes one question the interest of the author on the article. I have even stated on the talk page on March 14, 2009 of the article that sourcing needs to be updated and changing the POV. Handrem (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like there are sockpuppetry accusations on both sides, but regardless I do not think the 'interest of the author' (or anyone else here) is even relevant, what actually matters is if Adam Lyons warrants a wikipedia entry based on notability criteria, etc. I agree there are problems with the article, but that means it needs work - not deleting. Shockeroo (talk) 23:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notability has been established with almost three references from reliable sources, and nearly a dozen from others. It appears that most of the content is sourced as per WP:BLP. These accusations of sockpuppetry must be resolved before closure of this AfD. If there's meatpuppetry involved, all the worse for the closing admin! Josh Parris 09:39, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed the article as it stands at the moment, and have no reason to change my opinion. Josh Parris 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've reviewed the article as it stands at the moment, and I believe that it meets the Basic Criteria of WP:BIO. In past a version of the article it was asserted that he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field, and I suspect that eventually a citation will make its way back in supporting this. Whilst a short bio that might not expand, in my opinion it meets the criteria of WP:BIO, including WP:NPOV, !WP:OR and WP:V. The notability might be near the tipping point, but I don't think it's on it. This guy has had entire articles written about him, in reliable sources - that's so much more than so many of the biographies that come across AfD. My opinion that the article continues to merit retention stands, in spite of a smaller reference list. I'd like to acknowledge the work of Quantpole in tightening the article up, and of Shockeroo in earlier edits that substantially improved the article. Josh Parris 11:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep , Seems quite notable, and the citations are wide ranging reliable sources. Off2riorob (talk) 16:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete I rule out the sources from within the community out of hand, as unreliable mutual PR. I doubt the sources from even the normally RSs in this case, as either ironical, or disguised PR, or written as reports of what he claims for himself. Reference 1/ reports on it ironically, as does 2/ & 12/ .--even FOX regards him as a joke. The nature of the reporting in the others is similar. . 3/ describes him accurately, as a "self-titled attraction expert"--in other words they are reporting his claims, not giving them their authority as valid. 6/ does not support the claims in the article. 4/ 5/ 8/ & 11/ are tabloids, not in my opinion RSs on topics they find titillating. Being a seduction expert may be notable, saying you are is not. He is not "regarded as Europe's leading expert on attraction in the seduction community", as the article reads; he rather gives interviews in which he claims he is--that is the most sources demonstrate. If the Wikipedia community does regard him as notable,, needs to be clearly indicated--at present it reads as an advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 18:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC) I re-examined the question, in view of the very major improvements in the article. See below.[reply]

This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts.- Delete I agree with DGG. Most sources are not RS since the person in question is involved in the articles with no in-depth research on the person himself. Self-proclaiming being an expert does not constitute to any notability and the unreliable sources show this. ThaLux (talk) 07:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With regards to the sockpuppets, I think it is useful to note that the following users have been blocked for being sockpuppets of each other: Handrem, Coaster7, Camera123456, Xandrus, ThaLux and 54Boofie. 54Boofie is the user that requested RHaworth to consider this article for deletion, while the rest have been votestacking as you can see here. I think DGG raises some interesting points though. I agree that the sources from the community are unreliable. I think dismissing the reporting because it is ironic is a step too far though. Any reporting of the seduction community by mainstream media is usually ironic. Take a look at an interview with Erik von Markovik who is notable:

http://www.venusianarts.com/mystery-on-jimmy-kimmel-live/

Also if you view his interview with Conan O'Brian, the whole interview is a joke. Fox does take Adam Lyons light-heartedly as you say, but I think that is to be expected because Fox is a very conservative news station and while dating could fit the bill I think seduction and the concept of pickup is a topic that is comfortable to deal with only in a joking way, especially if you consider the Fox stereotype of the right-wing, Christian, pro-life and pro-marriage etc. I think with this in mind the references still stand. I think that it is the fact that he is in the mainstream media- NBC, Fox, Channel 4 etc. that matters and not the light-hearted treatment of seduction because the treatment is because of the topic and not the person if that makes sense. Reference 5 is interesting, because you are right in that it techinically is published in a tabloid format, but it is not a tabloid. The Independent is a very well respected newspaper, if a little left-leaning. As a comparison The Times is also published in a tabloid format, though they prefer to call it compact to distance them from real tabloids. He has been featured in a bunch of other sources like FHM, Timeout and ITV but they are not online and would take some digging up to find. Anyway I will have another look at the references and see if I can improve them, especially the distinction between claiming to be the best and being recognised as the best. I think reference 1, although reporting it light-heartedly, does actually mention him as:

Considered America’s No. 1 seducer, 28-year-old Lyons is coming to the Magic City to help you and others hook up. He won that title at something called the Pick Up Artists Summit in case you were wondering.

I think the irony is there, but I don't think it is sufficient to dismiss the article, though that is just my personal opinion.

Anyway does anyone think it would be wise to delete the votes from the accounts that are currently blocked for being sockpuppets? DRosin (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree with DGG over most of the sources, but the independent one ([1]) is specifically about him, in depth, and isn't a puff piece. The article needs a heck of a lot of clean up, but I believe it is possible. Quantpole (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

95% of that articles is a report of what he says about himself, as either a direct or an indirect quote. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's quite that bad, but I understand your point, and you are correct above when you say that his claims need to be phrased as such. I still think there is enough coverage to meet the notability requirements though. Quantpole (talk) 09:40, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it's worth pointing out that half the notes here are written by one DRosin, a business partner of the guy in question. Have a look at the COI section on DRosin's talk page. WoodenBuddha (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Bizarrely I have to keep repeating this to WoodenBuddha, but I am not a business partner of Adam Lyons. I have never even met him, sadly. Do have a look on my talk page for one of the more interesting exchanges on Wikipedia though. DRosin (talk) 01:05, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm an inclusionist - if there's any way to justify keeping an article on Wikipedia, I'd love to keep it. But looking at all the sources presented, there's just not enough reliable sources in the article to prove its claims to notability. Maybe in the future there will be enough coverage, but as of this moment, there isn't. See DGG's comments above. Lithorien (talk) 18:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete . Moved from keep. Looking at the sources again, lots of self promotion, not as yet notable, the multiple socks attempting to influence the decision are a worry. Off2riorob (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have struck through two comments above before the relisting tag. The user WoodenBuddha violated Wikipedia by posting a bunch of photos and personal information about some guy so it was removed by an Oversighter, so the COI section is no longer there. I am honestly getting a little tired of all the sockpuppetry and harassment going on regarding this article, I don't really see why it is evoking such a response. Regarding the concerns about the references not being not enough, I will see if I can find some more, I know there is an FHM article and an ITV television thing, but I haven't found them online. This is probably flogging a dead horse, and I realise the relist tag is intended to create new discussion and not have the article creator rant on, but I believe the references are sufficient to show notability. The Independent, Channel 4, CTV, Fox and NBC are references I would point to regarding this. I realise that pointing to other articles that are like-for-like is not a sufficient argument, but if you look at Owen Cook, and Ross Jeffries before I added some references, they were particularly poorly sourced.

Also interesting, though not really relevant to the outcome of this AfD is that the user that requested this AfD on RHaworth's talk page has been blocked for being a sockpuppet of all the accounts marked on this AfD. Anyway, enough of my flogging, I will leave a comment if I find some new references DRosin (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry to keep commenting, but I have added two more references- FHM and New York Daily News. DRosin (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think there are problems with the article, but I think the sources are sufficient to prove notability. If it is kept there are some sections which need the tone cleaning up, and I think the technique section could be removed, I agree with DGG over seduction community sources. All in all I don't think it merits deleting though.128.86.179.113 (talk) 15:46, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
— 128.86.179.113 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment I have updated the article. I have tried to improve the tone and have added a reference for a CBS television spot. DRosin (talk) 22:57, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I was asked to reconsider based on the reference, but a spot appearance on a show does not make for notability or increase it. The article is striped down considerably. Unfortunately, when the peacockery was removed, there wasn't much left: and even the remaining content is not supported: The amount of media arttention is called "surprising extent" without a source for that conclusion. There is no evidence except his repeated say-so for the first sentence after the lede, that "Voted least likely to ever get a girlfriend in school by his classmates when he was 15"-- nor for any of the first 3 paragraphs--just him repeating his own early bio as oiving a basis for his ideas points. There is no evidence whatsoever that the material in the section on the formula is even worth inclusion. The source used for it is just like the others: a report of his own words about himself. I reviewed the sources: whether or not in direct quotes, the principal content of most of the sources is essentially identical, a good sign of being based upon PR. DGG ( talk ) 02:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have done a pretty significant editing of the article now trying to take on DGG's comments. I think it should be beared in mind that any coverage of members of the seduction community has aspects which are self-promotion and aspects which are not taking the subject seriously. Mystery's appearance on Conan O'Brian is an example of this. Mystery promoted his company, and Conan O'Brian made fun of Mystery. I think disregarding sources based on promotion and irony can be taken too far. Lyons has been featured in NBC, CBS, Channel 4, The Independent as the article states, and I would agree that the article didn't prove notability if the references from The Mirror and The Sun were the only sources on the article, but the article as it stands has a wide variety of sources from mainstream media that are both independent and reliable. DRosin (talk) 13:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Keep Made some edits tonight. Definitely notable to my mind - regular media coverage, strong web presence (particularly his position at askmen.com), the Independant piece is a very good indicator and is referred to by The Mirror as "Britain's top dating expert". The article is useful - from time to time various people will want to look him up. Shockeroo (talk) 02:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree the 'Techniques and contributions' section is a bit dodgy and may want removing entirely if it can't be brought up to scratch. While that would leave the article somewhat sparse that might not be a bad thing; I believe Lyons is definitely worthy of an article, but perhaps not a big one. Shockeroo (talk) 02:21, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Shockeroo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. I have decided to tag this account, 16 edits this year, 12 of them to this topic. Off2riorob (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC) — **Hello, sorry, what does this mean? I'm afraid I have made an excessive number of edits as I am rather clumsy, most of them are fixing minor errors with whatever I'd just done. Aside from my 'votes' in each of the two deletion debates, I made some effort to improve the article and documented the entirity of this on the discussion page, and then commented on it here also. I am familiar Lyons so this is an topic is of interest to me and easy for me to work on. Shockeroo (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Comment I don't see why the section 'Techniques and contributions' is considered encyclopedic. The formula for attraction is not based any scientific data. The term entourage game is coined by himself but not sourced. That leaves the biography which is questionable considering the sourcing (see DGG comments). Deganveranx (talk) 01:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've tried to trim out the most egregious stuff, and leave what is only reasonably sourced. I've taken out the 'techniques' section and some other claims. Quantpole (talk) 09:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was asked to reconsider, and I admit to being surprised at the current article. The article has now been so well edited that I think it should stand, if only as a model for how to do other similar articles. (I assume Quantpole -- a relatively new but apparently reliable editor-- will take some responsibility for keep it so) Everything there meets WP:V, the tone is suitable, and perhaps he is sufficiently notable in his field. DGG ( talk ) 02:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adam Lyons passes WP:BIO as evinced by the sources in the article. See this article from CTV, this article from The New York Daily News, and this article from The Independent. Notability is fully established. Cleanup/tone issues that existed at the beginning of the AfD have now been addressed. Cunard (talk) 05:25, 10 December 2009 (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.