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. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Soul[edit]

Jeremy Soul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(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)).

Non-notable. Original research. Created by sockpuppet account with COI. Lack of independent, reliable sources DRosin (talk) 23:21, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am the nominator for this AfD. A comparable AfD occurred with Adam Lyons recently and I think in contrast to Adam Lyons this article does not have sufficient sources, and the subject lacks notability. Some of the sources do not even mention him, and I couldn't find anything myself to strengthen the article. My other concern was that the article was created by an account which was banned for being a sockpuppet of an account that had a COI with Love Systems which Jeremy Soul seems to work for. A lot of original research on this one makes me think neutrality is lacking as well. This is my first AfD nomination so I might be being too harsh (or just wrong!) on this one, but I think the article could benefit from some other eyes. I think the article merits deleting, although merging with Love Systems might be useful if there are some sources that demonstrate some degree of notability. As it stands I don't think this article is good enough for Wiki, especially from what I have learnt from the Adam Lyons AfD (another figure in the seduction community.) DRosin (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no assertion of notability, nor do I expect any. It indicates he is in the process of writing a book, which might have changed my opinion if it had significant coverage, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Shirik (talk) 23:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hey there - I've added both an assertion of notability, and removed or referenced the items I found that appeared to be original research - thanks for you feedback WoodenBuddha (talk) 04:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Keep This articles has more than three reliable sources to enforce notability and WP:BIO. I agree that the sentence on the upcoming book is not good enough, so that might have to be removed but it should not be the reason to delete this page. Deganveranx (talk) 23:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — Stormhammer9782 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. '"Keep"'. I believe the most reliable sources are those of the reviews and experiences of his workshop students. The links to the Love Systems website provides these reviews. I agree on being neutral for it's the fair and right thing but neutrality has to come from objective facts. The book may not have coverage as yet because maybe it has not been published just yet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stormhammer9782 (talk • contribs) 01:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — Stormhammer9782 (talk) [reply]

• Comment With regard to the references, what we found on the Adam Lyons page was that tabloid sources weren't reliable or independent as they were usually just PR pieces. DGG had a lot to say about this. If we examine the references used in this article, Reference 1 is a non-notable tabloid, and amusingly is in Swedish. I am not sure what the Wiki policy is on foreign-language, but even if this reference was in English it would not qualify as an independent or reliable source. Reference 2 does not mention the subject at all. It does not support the assertion that the subject worked at Love Systems. Reference 3 is in Swedish and looks like another tabloid. Reference 4 is a non-notable tabloid. Reference 5 I think is just Reference 1 but in English. Reference 6 is a commercial podcast which I think is obviously not independent or reliable. Reference 7 makes no mention of him from what I can tell. Regarding Stormhammer's comment, I do not think you understand the difference between references and external links, and what constitutes independent and reliable sources. Reviews of his students on the commercial website of the company that he works for are in no way independent or reliable. The reviews you mention are a terrible example of neutral sources in my opinion. Feel free to disagree (and welcome to Wikipedia!), but I really don't think the evidence you have cited supports keeping this page in any way. DRosin (talk) 09:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This user has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser confirms that he or she has abusively used one or more accounts. - Comment The importance of sources is that it is neutral and has verifiable information. All sources do and none are tabloids. Metro is a newspaper chain in Europe, the second sources states the facts that bootcamps are main stream activities, third source is from a newspaper in Norway, 4th is the local newspaper in Las Vegas, 5th is not the same as the first source (different newspaper), 6th yes is a podcast ran by Jordan Harbinger and people of The Art of Charm which makes it notable. From looking at the article's history, DRosin already tried to delete this article without any attempt to improve the article. I would rather see you improve articles and contribute instead of trying to disruptively delete articles that others have spent time working on. Deganveranx (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - well sourced article about someone who's citations show he's notable. I've been working on the pages inside the Seduction community for nigh-on four years now. We've got a pretty good idea now of what's notable and what's not - DRosin is a new user who's been heavily promoting Adam Lyon's page, and trying to get others deleted. Not helpful. WoodenBuddha (talk) 17:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is unfortunate that this AfD has some sockpuppets/meatpuppets on this now. Deganveranx is being investigated for being a sockpuppet of Handrem, who was blocked along with 5 other accounts recently for having a conflict of interest with Love Systems, who Jeremy Soul article apparently works for. WoodenBuddha was going to be blocked on Wikipedia for posting a variety of personal information, photographs etc. of some random person on my talk page. I did not pursue blocking the user because I tried to assume good faith although the information was removed by an admin. I don't want this AfD to turn into an edit war, and I don't want to fling around sockpuppet accusations with no foundation, but I would take what the users WoodenBuddha and Deganveranx have said with a small bit of salt. To address their comments, I think all of then sources are from tabloids, and that is pretty clear. The Art of Charm article is of dubious notability as well, and may be worth looking at after this article. Anyway, I think the article remains lacking notability and sufficient sources, and that the tone very spammy. The fact that it was created by a blocked sockpuppet account adds to my suspicion, but is probably not strictly relevant DRosin (talk) 19:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment DRosin - please try and keep the tone professional - throwing around accusations of puppetry when cornered is not a good start! :-) The 'almost blocked' comments above refer to when I pointed out there existed an individual whose real name was an expansion of your username, and who had very very strong links to 4 pages that you created (and were deleted by AfD) - as a display of a potential COI. Additionally: the fact you're referring to Aftenposten as a tabloid (it's Norway's leading quality paper) seems further examples of your bad faith here. I'm sure you'd agree that if you're really keen to make a difference on Wikipedia, you'll give some constructive criticism on how you think the page could be improved! WoodenBuddha (talk) 04:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment WoodenBuddha, my good faith is pretty much running out. I requested a Checkuser and it found that Deganveranx was a sockpuppet of Handrem. You can view the investigation here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Handrem/Archive

That is about 9 accounts in total that have been blocked within a week relating to Love Systems. I'm not sure what 4 pages you are referring to, and I think only one of my articles has been deleted, but I think your editing behaviour exhibits a similar COI with Love Systems, and I would have thought you would take a break from Wikipedia after almost being banned for violating Wikipedia policy last week. I don't think the page can be improved because the subject lacks notability and the sources are not good enough. Some fresh eyes (that aren't sockpuppets) would be beneficial on this AfD. DRosin (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — Jessica.mickens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I got into the Game a few years back and I've been following the major players ever since (I'm a woman, but I find the whole thing fascinating). Soul came to my attention a few years ago and I've seen his rise to prominence since then. He's notable for advocating some of the major shifts in thinking in the Seduction Community. Before he came along, everyone was using indirect openers. Now everyone does direct game - because of his teachings and articles. I've checked through the media sources referenced and it all fits with what I've heard about him, especially from people that have taken his training program. A friend of mine actually showed me the Aftenposten piece, it was a front cover story, and that's one of Norway's biggest publications. I guess he does a lot of work in Scandinavia, given the other Swedish media coverage as well.Jessica.mickens (talk) 06:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — 217.155.238.118 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. keep Jeremy Soul is a reliable and notable technician within his field. He is widely respected and viewed as a pioneer, and therefore deserves the page. Editors and Sources on this page are accurate and viable. I can see no violation of the rules of wikipedia. 217.155.238.118 (talk) 12:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC) max marsh[reply]

• — Fleury1985 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I do not see any issues with respect to notability requirements, WP:NPOV, or WP:BIO. Jeremy Soul is a major figure in the dating science community - otherwise he would not have had the referenced articles written about him, appeared on popular podcasts, etc. Additionally, all the referenced sources are independent of Jeremy Soul. If a media outlet says Soul is very good (or even the best) at what he does, it makes sense that the article editors would quote it. Further, everything I see in this article is rooted in facts and not opinions. Fleury1985 (talk) 17:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep There seem to be enough references , with at least a minimally acceptable degree of reliability, References in any language will do, and Aftenposgten is a major newspaper--though this seems to come from their magazine, not the news section. I do not consider Metro a RS in the same sense--it is not a newspaper chain, but a chain of mainly local entertainment listings, more or less like New York--I would consider it somewhere between a RS local magazine and a tabloid. At this point for this subject, I'm tending to judge by how free from spam and how-to-do-it the article is, though of course that is not really the proper criterion, for it can quickly get changed in either direction but the ability to write an article without it does indicate that there may be something there. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment after having removed references in possibly reliable sources that didn't mention the words "Jeremy", "Soul" or "Bonney", there's one Swedish English-language newspaper, and two others in LOTE. The rest of the references couldn't be regarded as reliable sources. The Swedish English-language newspaper article talks at length about Soul's work, but covers no biographical matters. I don't understand the LOTE articles, but the BLP cites them 9 times, the Swedish English once and the blog and podcast once each. There doesn't seem to be much supporting this BLP. Josh Parris 01:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — Ljzfun (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep I fail to see any violation of WP:NPOV, notability requirements, or WP:BIO. The references seem legitimate and, given Jeremy's high profile in his industry, it seems very natural that Wikipedia should have an entry to introduce him and his work. I fail to understand the objections being proposed. Ljzfun Ljzfun (talk) 03:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I had a go cleaning up the article, I think it is a bit better now without the commercial podcast bit and the promotional material. I almost would change my mind and vote Keep but the sockpuppet account with the COI that created this article influences my decision, and I still don't think this is notable enough, although the tone is a lot better (though still could do with some improving!). I actually translated the foreign-language articles and the Metro is very dodgy, while a lot of the references initially cited don't correspond at all to what they are supposed to. Also removed a Crystal Ball reference to some thesis is apparently being published at some point DRosin (talk) 12:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• — Kraanerg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep Soul is one of the best-known practitioners in this field, and most people interested in the subject would know his reputation, so I believe a Wikipedia article should exist. The media references are all legitimate from what I can tell. I agree that the initial writing wasn't neutral enough but that has now been corrected (although some informative data may have been deleted in the process). Kraanerg (talk) 12:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Tagging this user as single-use as this is the first edit made after two years of inactivity. DRosin (talk) 12:52, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I read the original article prior to the most recent changes and think the article is now missing the biographical information that might give some detail about what Jeremy Soul does. DRosin - you appear to have deleted anything of importance in your quest to have this page deleted! Checked out the Adam Lyons page and half of it is not referenced.... interesting that you've deleted anything not referenced here, yet not on the page of Adam Lyons. Just who are you working for DRosin????!!

I work in media and would note that most celebrities use tabloids for their references. I had a look at the references cited for Jeremy Soul and think they are OK... most journalists do cross-reference their info so if it's in print, it should be reasonably reliable. Check the gossip on celebrity pages if you'd like an example of tabloid journalism being accepted on Wikipedia...

Back to the point, if this guy is representative of the industry - as the references appear to support - why not keep him? I find this whole seduction community thing fascinating, it's part of modern life. It's good to know about who's out there working in the field. Dstar76 (talk) 14:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC) DStar76[reply]

• The Adam Lyons article was half unreferenced before its AfD; looking at the current one, every single statement is sourced, a fine upstanding example of WP:BLP and WP:BIO that probably isn't going to get much bigger. Your statement seems reckless. Josh Parris 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• D.Rosin - I just corrected your spelling and referencing errors you made when changing the article so significantly. You're clearly not as thorough as you purport. Dstar76 (talk) 15:16, 17 December 2009 (UTC)DStar 76[reply]
  • Hey Dstar76. Thanks for correcting the spelling mistake. Metro is not a Norwegian paper, it is Swedish, I'll correct your input on the page. I don't want to be a pedant, but if it wouldn't kill you to be civil I'd appreciate it DRosin (talk) 15:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist if all the uncited statements were removed from this BLP, we'd be left with "He was cited in Norway's Aftenposten and Sweden's Metro as a {company} expert on {technique}.[1][2] Recent media focusing on {company} and Jeremy Soul’s techniques include articles in Oslo’s Aftenposten[2], and Sweden’s Metro[1] and The Local, where author Christine Demsteader wrote that Jeremy Soul 'personifies what he preaches; honest, articulate, open...'.[3] When not traveling the world teaching {technique} to {company}'s clients, Jeremy Soul resides between Stockholm and London. [3]" This article needs more time to improve; if it can't be improved with all this energy fluxing around, it never will. Josh Parris 23:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd like to see a lot less about sockpuppets on this talk page; I don't care who created this article or why, all that matters is should it be here now as per WP:BIO / WP: Notability. My initial thoughts are that the sources are inadequate and some quick work with Google suggests that Soul has not had a lot of coverage, at least in the English-speaking world. Maybe there are more Sweedish and Norwegian sources for him, unfortunately I can't verify that. But in any case, if he was that notable, would there not be more English sources too? The only English language source a bit of a PR piece, it's not standard 'newsworthy' material. I would like to see more attempts to improve the article before I make my judgement on keep or delete but at the moment I'm leaning towards delete. Shockeroo (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just made an effort to improve the article. In restructuring some of it I have found that the use of citations in the previous incarnation was rather forced; they seem to have been included for their own sake as opposed to being used to back up encyclopedic material. Please see my comments on the article's talk page. Also I still have strong reservations about notability; can anyone find some sources to deal with the 'citation needed' tags please? Shockeroo (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There doesn't seem to be the same level of coverage as for Adam Lyons (which was recently discussed), and on that article there was a pretty good article specifically about the guy. This person however seems to be covered mainly in relation to the business he works for. Quantpole (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sources in the article do not satisfy the need for reliable third party coverage in my opinion (although I cannot read the foreign language sources so I'm only going on my existing knowledge of them and what others have said). Mah favourite (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not sufficiently notable; spent some more time looking for good sources for this guy tonight and I just can't find any. Of the 3 we have, the Norwegian one barely mentions him in the last section, the English one is a PR piece and the Sweedish one looks like it is too. If you want to save this article, go find more and better sources - but I just don't think they're out there. Shockeroo (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relister's note: The discussion is a mess, but without including blocked users there are some keep votes from non-SPA users, so I will relist it once for more discussion for more consensus even though it seems to be trended for a delete right now. Maybe a couple more comments would be necessary JForget 15:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Metro is a free tabloid, but it isn't guilty of the things that give tabloid journalism a bad name. I think that coverage in Metro and the other newspapers cited is independent, and on that basis notability has been established. References need not be in English to be valid, and editors wanting to confirm the information in a non-English reference are welcome to use http://translate.google.com The fact that the person's advice may not work very well does not detract from the fact that independent reliable sources have written about him, and the fact that a banned editor considers him notable does not detract from the evidence that he is notable. - Eastmain (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless better sources can be found. I've looked and can't find any, but drop me a message on my user page if some do turn up. The sources from The Metro and The Local are both PR fluff; I can't read the Afterposten piece but it says very little Soul at all (2 mentions in a single paragraph towards the end). Even the itself article suggests no notability other than being 'a seduction community expert on Daygame' which not even wholly substantiated by the sources. Shockeroo (talk) 22:49, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per sourcing concerns, and the long-standing fact that when a wave of brand-new users show up to vote "keep" on an article, that invariably means the article is promotional in purpose. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• — Jessica.mickens (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Keep A few friends told me that Soul was recently on a Norwegian radio station called P4 Radio Hele Norge, which I checked out and has it's own wikipedia page. I think he was on Anders Van Dahl's show, but as I don't read or write Norwegian myself I can't see a link right now. However, I have emailed my friends and if I find the reference I will cite on the page. Jessica.mickens (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although the article has been improved, the absurd amount of SPAs influences my decision. I still don't think it has enough sources yet, maybe some day, but not now. I think there may be something to be said for merging the article with Love Systems possibly, but as it stands I think the article should be deleted DRosin (talk) 10:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

that people wrongly support an article does not mean there are no valid supports, and more than an spa attack on an article would be sufficient to avoid deletion if there were also good reasons for doing so--we would get really weird results if we applied that principle. In this case, I think it's practical to tell them apart, but if not, the usual resort is a non-consensus close and a repeated AfD. The contamination is usually less the 2nd time. DGG ( talk ) 04:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, lack of reliable sources or any depth to this BLP makes the subject matter non-notable. Josh Parris 01:05, 27 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.