Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mystery Method (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Seduction literature. We have the somewhat uncomfortable, but fairly common position in which there is consensus that the article should not be kept in stand alone form, but no consensus to delete it. I will close this with Seduction literature as a proposed target, but this is favored by a bare plurality, and the interested editors certainly are free to decide on another target. If the merger somewhere isn't accomplished in a reasonable period of time, the article is subject to renomination and possible (perhaps even likely) deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mystery Method

Spammy article that doesn't seem to have sufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--per WP:IDONTLIKEIT I won't cast a ballot here (and the spamminess level is amazingly high), but I did notice this: [1], [2], and [3]... Drmies (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The painfully detailed description of the "method" should probably be reduced to a tenth of its current size, but the concept has been sufficiently covered to establish notability. Townlake (talk) 04:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Seduction community or Seduction literature (merger between those two articles has already been suggested anyway). Delete voters have fair points. Townlake (talk) 19:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A merge & redir to Mystery_(pickup_artist) would also make a lot of sense. There's already a subsection of that article discussing his method (or "technique"). Townlake (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep, clean up - the book received significant coverage and is clearly notable. Artw (talk) 07:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually the book is a seperate article - you might have grounds for a merge. Not strong ones though. Artw (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure where the sufficient coverage comes from, but there isn't much in the way of notable content in the article itself. Rather than providing sources with valid information on the subject, the article uses outside sources to make OR comparisons between the methods described in the book and those of notable figures (such is the case with Gould). While the NYT article does suggest notability is possible, this article does not meet many other standards for inclusion. Mrathel (talk) 19:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the book is perhaps notable. the man is notable. the method as such is not--its am attempt to duplicate (triplicate, actually) the articles on him. is not. The court materials concern the domain or the person, not the method--that section is totally irrelevant. 19:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Comment I haven't voted yet even though I've been involved in the page. One problem we've had from the beginning (which isn't made any easier with the crossfire of COI + SPA accounts representing Venusian Arts Corporation on one side and at the very least some accounts with a very unhelpful anti-Mystery perspective on the other) is that we don't have a shared understanding of what exactly this page is for. There is already a page for Mystery, so is this page for "Mystery's Method" of picking up women? I don't think so, or we should also have a "Tucker Max's Method" page and a "Neil Strauss' Method" page that is separate from the main page. Does it refer to the organization and school of seduction thought called "Mystery Method" that existed since 2004 and included a number of pick up artists? If so, the page needs to reflect the evolution of both the company & the methodology & the personalities involved - I might have some of the details wrong, but my understanding is that "Mystery" was teaching in 'Mystery Method" in 2004-05 only, and that after then, it was all Savoy, Sinn, The Don, Cajun etc? I do know that the Mystery Method of 2008 - in terms of what is being taught - is vastly different from what Mystery taught in 2004-05 and is vastly different from what Mystery is teaching now. (It would like writing an article on Disney that was only about Walt Disney and ignored everything after him...in a situation where Walt Disney left to found a smaller competing studio while Disney carried on, grew, expanded and developed without him).

Making a NPOV and inclusive page could be done, but editing this page is a nightmare. Anti-Mystery partisans keep wrecking the page and the SPA/COI accounts keep pushing Mystery's business stuff with spammy links. I don't know whether that qualifies as a reason to junk the page, but if it's going to be edited and cleaned up, there should be some way of discouraging the SPA/COI/non-NPOV stuff on both (all?) sides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk) 20:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a non notable method, at least not for an encyclopaedia. Before me, no one had ever defined courtship as a predetermined structure having several phases. Really? What about Psychology and Giacomo Casanova (1725 –1798)? Warrington (talk) 22:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Seduction literature. This and all related pages are a complete mess due to edit warring between rival factions with a dispute over the origination of the method, the company, etc... I am having a hard time seeing how these articles can ever achieve NPOV. There have been posts made to COI boards, editors attempting to out other editors. Merging pages could help contain the edit wars to a single (or small number of) article(s). On one hand, I wish the article could be cleaned up, but it might not be possible given the environment. Plastikspork (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment I think you may be right. On the other hand, if we had a consensus in here of what the page should look like, it's a matter of filling in the details. For example, I would propose that the page could look have 1) Intro (MM book vs MM theory vs Mystery himself), 2) Methodology 04-05, 06-09 (two sections), 3) Criticism, etc., 4) ownership dispute if it's even necessary. If we all agreed on that, the actual content that would go into there would be fairly uncontroversial. Then we split the difference between the Mystery-Corporate people who want the article to stop in 2005 or to focus exclusively on Mystery the person and the anti-Mystery people who want to whitewash him from the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)

- I really have to think that if wikipedia can have articles on truly controversial and emotional subjects, we should be able to manage one here that is fair to both (or all?) sides that have an interest here while presenting useful information.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)

- Further Comment I'm not sure how relevant this is, but if you type Mystery Method in google this page is the leading entry. That would imply that lots of people are linking to the page and consider it important and useful. However, I'm not sure if that is a relevant criterion for inclusion. Nor am I even sure that the page is worth keeping; I've wasted too many hours already. Thoughts?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.1.215 (talk)
- further reply I think wikipedia is the first page that comes up for the majority of topics that don't have paid ads on google, but in a way that actually works against a claim of notability, because that would show that wikipedia is the source most commonly used to attain information about the subject. Of course, that point is moot too because even books such as "The Sound and the Fury" have their wikipedia page come up first. But let us not forget that Google learns about its users as it goes, directing you to pages you commonly use. But all of this is really a sidenote. If the method were truly notable, then we would not have to be arguing about google searches in the first place. I really don't think there is anything in the page that describes a notable topic for an article. No non-trivial writers have discussed it and I am not sure that editors talking about it really knows what it is... the contraversy seems to stem from the fact that the term doesn't really have a definition because... its not notable. Mrathel (talk) 21:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He is notable,and just conceivably the book. The method has no separate notability. There is nothing useful to merge. It is not even a reasonable search term. Wikipedia is usually the main entry for topics like this, which nobody else cares much about--that's not an argument one way or the other. DGG (talk)
- There's a subset of people for whom this would be a viable search term. Mystery and his "method" were the subject of a VH1 reality TV show a year or two ago. The reference to the method should redirect somewhere. Townlake (talk) 17:32, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in need of merging. A redirect to the Mystery (pickup artist) would serve people who did not bother to type The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed. - Eldereft (cont.) 20:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep and Response to above The consensus seems to be against keeping it, which is fine, but I would completely disagree with redirecting the search to Mystery pickup artist. While I think some have exaggerated the point, it is undeniably true that The Mystery Method as an entity or organization or school of thought or even as a popular seduction website is significantly different from Mystery the person. Maybe a disambigulation page listing the book, the person, and organization. Perhaps the book is notable enough for a small entry, the person already has one, and the organization (as Love Systems) has one.Camera123456 (talk) 04:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with either Mystery (pickup artist) or Seduction literature. The notable sources, such as news articles etc refer to Mystery more than the Method. His particular method is what gave him his notoriety. This article is for too detailed for a whole encylopedia entry, when Mystery the man is more widely noted. Until the ownership dispute is resolved and made known throughout the community with some notable sources this article will probably never be very high quality. Its more logical to put a brief overview of the Method in the other sections, if at all. Seduction material tends to be unnecessarily detailed, which is fine for the community, but it doesn't make sense for a public encylopedia.--AzazelswolfsuperPUAwithacherryontop (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Mystery and the Mystery Method are two completely different things; the former is a person and the latter is a method of seduction and the name of a corporation behind the method. Although I do agree that there should be a reference made on Mystery's page to the method, the method itself needs to have it's own page. It was initially developed by Mystery but subsequently refined and further developed by the people behind the Mystery Method corporation. The page should be kept and/or redirected to Love Systems (formerly the Mystery Method corporation) with references on both the Mystery and Love Systems page. If no one wants to take responsibility I'm willing to rewrite the page with npov and reliable sources (as I have done with success in the past on other articles). Coaster7 (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists or seduction literature or seduction community or Mystery (pickup artist) per Azazel & townlake. THF (talk) 12:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The Mystery Method is part of the old Mystery Method Corporation that used be run by Mystery and Savoy (see their respective Wikipedia pages). I vote for merge with Love Systems (formerly known as Mystery Method). Add references to both Mystery's page and The Game if necessary Deganveranx (talk) 00:56, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that no one can seem to agree where it should be merged or redirected seems to indicate that there is a topic here which transcends the other subjects; it is clear that the method has received significant coverage in reliable sources, whether it is in the context of its description in the book The Mystery Method: How to Get Beautiful Women Into Bed (reviewed by The New York Times]); the person known as "Mystery" (interviewed by Salon.com); the book The Game (a story in the Los Angeles Times); or the method itself as taught in expensive courses ("For $2,950 each, Mystery Method transforms men in Scottsdale" in The Arizona Republic). Perhaps this article could be rewritten to be about both the book (Mystery Method, not The Game) and the method, but that is an editing, and possibly renaming, issue. DHowell (talk) 01:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the consensus appears to support a merge/ redirect / deletion of this article as a stand-alone piece. Redirecting/ Merging to one of the other articles would preserve the history and allow anyone who wants to wade through the article to see if there is anything worthwhile the opportunity to do so and would also recognize the substantial number of editors who have concluded this article should be deleted (as it would no longer exist in its present form after the merge/ redirect took effect). ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, though the apparent consensus is to merge or redirect (there is not a consensus to delete), there is no consensus as to where the redirect should point. Everyone seems to be saying that it isn't notable independent of some other subject, but the fact that there are reliable sources commenting on this method, in the context of several different subjects (an author, two books, a corporation, and a controversy over ownership of the method), means that there is an independent notability. Could you please address why you think the sources I cited above, which do indeed contain significant commentary on the seduction method, and not just coverage on a person, a book, or a company, do not constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? DHowell (talk) 06:29, 10 February 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.