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. Bucketsofg 02:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Real Social Dynamics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This is where new discussion should go, not on an old page. Please continue here. Last version before I put it back to the archive was here (discussion is suppose to be preserved as an archive, not edited). No opinion -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently, my !vote remains as a Delete - however, there are two links that reference hardcopy publications, and if a weblink can be found such as a Google cache or a bugmenot, I will review the information and revisit my !vote from there. --Dennisthe2 00:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've revisited my vote, and have decided to give a Keep under the circumstances. User:SecondSight has done an...well, an amazing job of asserting notability on the two sources there that have been transplanted under the References section, which seems to be a much better home for them. My previous statement, though, still stands - a link to the articles, if you can find one offsite (i.e., not so COI-ish), will do wonders for the references. I'm thinking like a Google cache or something. --Dennisthe2 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not appear to definitively pass WP:CORP, one hit on Google News Archive in a more general article, no hits on Find Articles, etc. Just the book isn't really enough, and it only looks like it's part of the book anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 00:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And Google New Archive and Find Articles are the only places to find sources since when, exactly? Also, you act is the book is the only source for this article, which is simply incorrect. See below. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:CORP is merely a proposed guideline. As such you typically shouldn't be trying to force a deletion based on that. Though in any case it still meets the proposed guideline. Mathmo ^Talk 06:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Nobody is trying to force the deletion here. This should be quite evident from the discussion that is taking place since this AfD was closed with a Delete consensus. Just because WP:CORP is not policy yet does not preclude it from being used as notability criteria. Luke! 07:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Two sources have been provided (I won't restart the discussion of whether two sources counts as "multiple") but they need to be checked for validity first. I am very concerned by the small number of Google hits for something that you'd expect would be overrepresented online. Also, not all sources are equal -- without seeing the sources, I would be willing to guess that these are tiny blurbs in a "News of the Weird" section or something like that. I agree with this quote, from the deletion review: "Is there no end to the overweening vanity of these "seduction community" people? The whole business is vanity built on vanity built on vanity." --N Shar 00:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Instead of guessing, why not look up the sources and actually find out? (See list of sources below.) Is it so much to ask that people review the sources before voting in an AfD instead of just following their preconceptions? With Google hits, I am getting 22,600; maybe that's small to you, but it isn't to me. As for the subject of vanity, I've already acknowledged in the earlier AFD above that "Part of the problem is that people affiliated with the company have often engaged in vanity-type whitewashing of the article." Yet disruption from those people doesn't mean that a balanced article cannot be written on the subject. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have looked up the sources. The two sources provided are copied (probably illegally, but that's not the point) to the RSD website and seem only to be available there. I agree that they don't appear to be "News of the Weird" items, but since the context is gone I can't be sure. Incidentally, simply searching "real social dynamics" may return extraneous sources; I searched it with names of the founders and found very few hits. And the comment on "vanity" was not meant to be a valid argument for deletion anyway, though the possibility of a conflict of interest has not been ruled out. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you for reviewing the sources. The Edge Magazine article isn't only available from the RSD website; there is a link in my previous comment and on the talk page of this discussion. You say that the "context is gone." Could you explain exactly what context are you looking for? --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Does not satisfy WP:CORP. Soltak | Talk 00:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would you like to provide some reasons why? --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I would like to review the sources for this article so we can all be on the same page in this discussion. Some of the editors above either haven't reviewed the sources, or aren't addressing all of them. They might have just missed my comments on the talk page, and on the talk page of the closing admin. Here are the prospective sources for the article:

1. The Times article
2. The Game
3. The Men's Health article (not linked to, though the text is available from the publication section of RSD's website)
4. The Edge Magazine article (here's a link to a website that archives the magazine since it is now out-of-print)
5. The San Francisco Magazine article[1]; it's only a paragraph, but I think this is nontrivial coverage, because it discusses the appearances of instructors for the company and it characterizes their methods:

“

But then, eerily, I run into two guys from Real Social Dynamics, another local pickup group that hosts trainings every weekend. I watch as the short, unshaven guy with an annoying accent and his friend sporting black nail polish and lots of jewelry—classic peacocking—approach two Scandinavian-looking girls who have already been hit on by PickUp 101 guys. I’m with Daniel, one of Mason’s assistants, and he explains how their techniques differ, as if they’re from a rival kung fu school. “We don’t try to entertain the girl as much. They’re acting like it’s a club in the middle of Union Square.”

”

The Times article doesn't mention RSD by name (it mentions Tyler Durden running a seminar, which can only be RSD), so let's throw it out for sake of argument. I agree with with an above comment that not all sources are equal, so let's say that The Game and the San Francisco Magazine article together are worth about one source (The Game is good for notability but not for verifiable information on the subject; the San Francicso Magazine coverage is non-trivial but admittedly small). Still, there are two other sources for the page: The Men's Health article, and the Edge Magazine article. The burden is on voters for deletion to explain how these sources are inadequate. None of the voters so far have done so. User:N Shar above "guesses" that they are "tiny blurbs in a 'News of the Weird' section," but admits not having read them. Yet if you read them you will see that they are both men's magazine articles (not "news of the weird") which both have RSD as the main subject.

I would like to point out that of the three users voting for deletion in the re-opened debate, none of them really address the sources in this article which are supposedly inadequate. User:Dhartung doesn't address sources for the article other than the book, User:N Shar admits not having reviewed the sources, and User:Soltak only offers a vague reference to WP:CORP without providing any explanation. I would ask that subsequent voters in this discussion fully address the arguments and sources offered. --SecondSight 02:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How could I have reviewed the sources? They weren't linked to. As for their reliability/applicability, the two cited on RSD's site seem good, though the context is now unavailable. The other sources have been critiqued by other users, and in general do not satisfy the criteria because they do not feature RSD as their subject. As I've said above, not all sources are equal. --N Shar 02:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What I objected to was the way you seemed to have judged the sources as inadequate prior to reviewing them. A link to the Edge Magazine article has been available on the talk page of this discussion, and a Google search for "real social dynamics" edge magazine found it as the first result. --SecondSight 03:17, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, on account that the article seems rather spammy. If it can be rewritten and the sources (above) included (are they reliable and establish notability?), I'll likely change my mind. --Dennisthe2 05:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I'd advise all editors to check what version of the article they are reading. Because various editors are constantly editing it, either massively cutting it down and in the proccess removing claims of notability and sources etc... Or adding large quantities of unsourced text about their methods. These combined forces lead to a very unstable article. Mathmo ^Talk
• Keep satisfies WP:CORP, sourced, etc. —siroχo 09:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not notable enough for a wikipedia article.Tellyaddict 12:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not? Sources have been supplied, again and again. Rather than saying "not notable" it would be better to address any claimed problems you may or may not have with them. Mathmo ^Talk 13:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  The mere existence of sources provides verifiability, not notability. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 14:49, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  But Multiple nontrivial reliable sources provide notability. —siroχo 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  And too many of the sources here aren't non-trivial, as has been pointed out in a number of places. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  So? enough of them ARE non-trivial, that it passes, doesn't matter how many are trivial as long as there are multiple nontrivial sources. —siroχo 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The notability of this article is not questionable, because The Game is usable as a source to establish notability (it just isn't a good source for facts on the company). Furthermore, there are at least two non-trivial sources other than The Game. Nobody voting for deletion has supplied any real arguments against those sources except for hand-waving about "puff pieces." --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:CORP Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it passes WP:CORP, (multiple nontrivial reliable published works...) so this is not a valid reason for deletion. —siroχo 15:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Puff pieces are trivial. The two "references" are puff pieces. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No they aren't, if they are independent and reliable and have some reasonable degree of focus on the subject. That is the requirement, puffery or not. —siroχo 16:56, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weakest Possible Keep In definate need of cleanup. Notability appears shaky from reading the article itself, but i'll trust the judgement of those above, as well as the opinion that WP:CORP is worthless since both sides use it as a reason and neither side can seem to explain how it applies here. Just H 15:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.I've added an "Ideology" section. It took me a few hours to write it up, and it keeps getting deleted. After reading this whole thread of debate on the spammish tone of the article, I took it upon myself to offer some tangible content. When I first wrote it the entire article had been deleted, so I offered this content as the start of a new article. If you wish to revert the article back to it's previous state that's fine, but please leave up the "Ideology" section which I have spent my time to contribute. Thanks very much.

Comment Section was totally unsourced. Removed. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Merge into Tyler Durden (pick-up artist) (and possibly articles on other principals). The reliable sources presented thus far establish Tyler Durden, and possibly one or both of the other principals, are notable as individuals, but they do not establish that their company, the Real Social Dynamics company, is notable as a company. The sources refer to the individuals, and they make clear that it is the individuals, not the company, who possess whatever notability/notoriety exists here. Tyler Durden currently redirects to Fight Club; Tyler Durden the PUA doesn't currently have his own article. Starting with that (and adding a disambig page) would appear to be solider ground for a Wikipedia article. --Shirahadasha 17:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I've mended the link; hope that that's OK. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would support merging into a page on Tyler Durden, but first I would have to see that page created (and I do not have the time to write it myself). --SecondSight 20:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- there's just reliable source - The Times article about pickup artists. That article has 2700+ words. Tyler Durden gets 110 words almost at the end of the article -- see for yourself.[2] That's not enough for notability. --A. B. ^(talk) 01:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Of course it isn't. Nobody is claiming otherwise. See my comments above, where I list the other sources for the page, and I stipulated that the Times article is not the main sources the article relies on. How many times must I ask for voters for deletion to actually address all the sources for this article? Virtually none of them have done so, which is turning this AFD into a kangaroo court. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then surely you acknowledge the necessity for notability, right? As far as the other stuff, I see a book on Amazon, and a blog. Nothing more. Come up with more and we have something, perhaps. --Dennisthe2 03:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are more sources, but either you are ignoring them or you haven't fully read this discussion. There are two more sources I mentioned about that have the company as their subject, the Men's Health article and the Edge Magazine article. There is also a third that I didn't mention, an article in the Sunday Telegraph (text is available at the bottom of RSD's news page). The Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are cited on the page, plain for everyone to see. Of course I acknowledge the necessity for notability; both Siroxo and I have argued why the subject is notable in the above discussion. --SecondSight 03:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop with the accusations. Stating that I'm merely ignoring them does absolutely, positively nothing to prove your point to me, and is, quite frankly, offensive. For the links to MH and Sunday Telegraph, you might want to provide links to the websites that the articles actually originated from - hanging these on the website in question raises eyebrows, and tends to speak strongly of conflict of interest. Finally, I should point out that the book you site - The Game, &c - is itself lacking in resources to tout its notability. My vote, currently, stands, with my commentary above. --Dennisthe2 03:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Earlier in the discussion, I made repeated requests that people voting for deletion address all the sources involved, not just one or two of the weak ones. Your above comment failed to address the relevant sources (though I guess I shouldn't speculate about whether you were ignoring them, or simply missing them, or... actually, I can't think of any other reasons why you didn't address them). I can see why you object to my tone, but it comes out of frustration due to my perception that many voters for deletion either aren't reading this discussion, or aren't participating honestly by addressing the proposed sources. As for links, the Men's Health and Sunday Telegraph articles are not available on their websites (at least for non-subscribers). It's unfortunate the RSD's website is the only place those articles can be found, but nowhere does wikipedia require that sources be linked to on the websites they originated from. The Edge Magazine article is available online, and its text appears to agree with the text on RSD's website. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For this, then, the important thing is that they're available - albeit with a membership. What I've seen traditionally is the link being provided, with a note on the side that membership is required - at least, that's on Slashdot. I wonder if there's a precedent for such a convention here.... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dennisthe2 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

...and the bot beat me to it again. =O.o= --Dennisthe2 05:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea here - use of Google Cache and "bugmenot". If you can work around it with these, depending on the content, it may work. --Dennisthe2 06:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• CommentStop removing the "Ideology" section. It's all common knowledge from the RSD community. If you like, I will email the RSD staff personally and ask if they ratify the ideology section as being, in fact, a synopsis of RSD ideology. If you want to delete it again, let me know what would be a satisfactory "sourcing" so that you would stop coming on here day in and day out and removing the section. The Mystery Method page has Mystery Method ideology on it and it has not been deleted. Shall we delete all ideology out of every seduction community based page? Why the double standard? Keep it neutral. Thanks.

Comment. To the above user, now is not the time to be adding any content to the article other than new sources. This is a deletion discussion. Hold off for now, because anything you add will just raise the chances of the article getting deleted. If the article is kept, then you can work on the article. --SecondSight 02:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my belief, that there is no Wikipedia policy that prohibits other editors from editing any article that is the subject of an AfD in any way. Your preceding comments show that you inherently have a bias towards keeping this article. Furthermore, your preceding comment does not act in the best interest of fair process as AfD's are to proceed - it may be construed upon as influencing other users to argue in favour of keeping the article; hence the above warning template. Luke! 03:24, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I admit that I should have phrased my above comment as a request, not as an imperative. It was not intended as a reference to any kind of policy. You say I "inherently have a bias towards keeping this article." This fails to assume good faith, and is not an interpretation of my comments that you have supported. My comments show that I have a "bias" towards keeping long, unsourced, WP:NPOV statements out of the article during the deletion debate. The worst that can be read into my comments is an attempt to influence the user to not edit the page for now (which I have retracted), which is different from trying to influence people to keep the article. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I always try to assume good faith. What I meant with my statement is that after previously taking a look at your userpage, the reader can gather the impression that you may lean towards keeping/creating articles relating to the seduction community. However, it is also noted on there that reliable sources are needed to support articles - of which I and most (arguably) editors believe this is one of the main issues surrounding this AfD debate. I hope that you haven't taken offence to this or my previous statement as it was not meant to come across as a personal attack. Luke! 20:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way I read SecondSight's comments was that it is unhelpfull for everybody here on this AfD to have an unstable article, which is what is going to happen if that content keeps on trying to be inserted by that IP address. Mathmo ^Talk 21:34, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whether the existing content of the article is deleted or not is not my concern. I agree that it is somewhat spammish, which is why I took it upon myself to add some TANGIBLE CONTENT to this article. Why should a ceaseless debate about this article (some of which has been by people who shown emotional and possible commercial involvement) hold up the IMPROVEMENT of the article? Leave the "Ideology" section up. Unless you can offer me a valid reason for why it should be removed I will keep adding it. In the meantime I will email Real Social Dynamics and have them ratify this article so that it can be sourced. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.208.141.138 (talk) 03:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. See my comments on Talk:Real Social Dynamics. --SecondSight 05:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a couple of problems with this article. First, it reads like a promo piece, right down to discussing the services the company offers. Second, I don't see sources for most of it. The ideology section doesn't seem to have anything to do with the company and should come out entirely as failing WP:NOT an instructional guide. But, it does get mentions in some major media, so very weak keep and attack with an editorial chainsaw to get the promo stuff out of it. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• "Delete Obvious commercially motivated article, except cluttered with product information way beyond most of the genre. The arguments of its promoter demonstrate the nature of the article--he thinks the most promotional parts of it to be essential. if kept, it will be easy & obvious how to stubbify.DGG 06:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article does not assert notability. "Real Social Dynamics (RSD) is a dating coaching company based in Los Angeles. It was founded by two "pick-up artists", Nick "Papa" Kho and Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook. In addition to its claim to teach men how to be more successful with women, RSD provides image consultations and offers advice on a variety of social dynamics. RSD now markets its techniques and strategies through its website., via his book[1], DVD sets, audio recordings, and live seminars and coaching with various instructors, including Cook." BFW. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Unfortunately, the page has been in the middle of an edit war during this AFD. A user has been adding a massive section that is not written from a neutral point of view. Even without that section, I agree that the article reads as an advertisement. As I mentioned before, we have had problems with people affiliated with the company white-washing the page. Still, POV alone doesn't mean the article should be deleted, just that it should be rewritten. --SecondSight 08:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes but. It's not just that it's spammy, that the sources are a bit borderline, it's that it doesn't really say that they've done anything. They've had 5 minutes of fame in the press, but that's because picking up is interesting, not because they've made any great contribution to the art thereof.[3] Spam and NPOV we could fix if it was worth doing so. Notability, that's the issue here. I'd like to suggest a merge to somewhere, but I don't know where. Regards, Ben Aveling 10:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps merging to the article about "Owen "Tyler Durden" Cook"? Though really that isn't so much merging as renaming. I'd disagree greatly with your claim that they have not made "any great contribution to the art thereof". Plus having made "great contributions" is not part of what is required by wikipedia under notability. For the very good reason that what is a "great contribution" can be highly subjective. Instead notability basically requires coverage by others (newspapers, books, tv, etc...). Which this has.Mathmo ^Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'll be continuing to re-add the "Ideology" section until someone can tell me why it doesn't add value to the article for the end reader. In the meantime, let's end the ceaseless debate and start improving the page. Come on guys, add some content. Don't be deleting the content that others like myself have spent time to provide. If you don't like it, edit it, improve it, add totally new content, but don't just go deleting it. That only hurts the end reader. Thanks.

Hi, various people including myself, SecondSight, and Mel Etitis have explained why to you at numerous places (such as your various random IP's talk pages and the article talk page). If you still have seen any of them then I can always later link to them. Might help if you start of editing less heated topics? And read various pages such as Wikipedia:Bootcamp to get yourself up to speed in understanding wikipedia. Mathmo ^Talk 15:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In a nutshell, very very thin sources for a very very detailed advertisement. The only real solution is judicious application of napalm. Part of a walled garden by a small group of participants in the so-called Seduction Community. And no, I will not respond to the bullying here of the walled garden's bricklayers. Don't like my opinion? Deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above Shaundakulbara 01:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Keep per SecondSight. Mathmo ^Talk 07:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — my mood not improved by the latest playing around, in which the new discussion is moved here, minus the first part, without the courtesy of informing those involved. I've informed the two editors who contributed to the original discussion but whose views don't appear here. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I believe Royalguard11 did a good job of informing past voters, he didn't absolutely have to go around informing everybody but he did anyway. The fact he only missed out on a couple of people, by accident I'm sure, should not be misused as a reason for deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 09:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  A peculiar implication, and one that assume bad faith against all the evidence. As for "only missing a couple" — not informing three people is a big omission in context (and I've not exactly been low profile in all this). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. Secondsights argument about the sources is compelling, but the article still reads very much like an advertisement. And how about this for a notable claim to fame: Cook gained prominence in the seduction community as a result of his many, very long posts to Internet web sites outlining his observations on seducing women. THE KING 10:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - complete spam. The critical sources don't meet WP:RS, the trivial ones make up too much of the core of the article, and the entire article fails WP:N. Multiple whitewashes and edit warring only compound the fact that, at best, the article should be deleted and if solid source can be found, created as a stub. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 10:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete spamvertisement with a thin gloss of trivial media coverage. This is non-notable, unencyclopedic, and the rest of the walled garden should go as well. Pete.Hurd 04:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • rest of the walled garden should go as well?! Do I need to remind you There Is No Cabal! As for "Unencyclopedic topic", please do elaborate on what you mean by this vague term of "unencyclopedic topic". Mathmo ^Talk 12:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ephemeral trivia that won't be fit for lining hamster cages in three years. Pete.Hurd 06:23, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Twenty pages of talking for a THREE page article? Is this a hobby or something? I understand that you want to be as accurate and neutral as possible. It's a valid concern. But I also understand that it shouldn't take this long to decide to improve upon an article. Let's start gathering sources for a new article and get this underway.

• Comment. Yeah, it is a hobby, actually :) At least for me. --N Shar 06:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, notability seemed pretty well established here, but everything currently uncited needs to get cited pretty soon. Everyking 06:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Verifiable --Ryan Delaney ^talk 10:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:CORP, which is not a proposed guideline but an actual guideline. Neither of the sources that work even mention "Real Social Dynamics". --Coredesat 20:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick look at the history of WP:CORP indicates that only very recently (i.e. last day or two or there abouts) has the guideline tag been added, and since then it has been under dispute with people removing it etc... Mathmo ^Talk 00:42, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since it's sufficiently notable. It could stand a good trimmming, though. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 21:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, enough sources, e.g. The Game which was one of the best-selling books of 2005. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-08 09:03Z
• Delete. Non-notable, unsourced. Nardman1 16:17, 8 February 2007 (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.