Pligg (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

I don't know if im doing this correctly.. But I want to write a review on the Pligg CMS ( http://www.pligg.com/). Found out about it http://webdevnews.net/tag/pligg/ then set it up http://www.howtoforge.com/news_voting_with_pligg Thanks this would be my first article. I found it to be locked, went to the IRC channel they redirected me to this site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JerryMcFarts ( talk • contribs)

• Welcome to Wikipedia! The title "Pligg" is protected because too many bad Wikipedia articles have been written about it. What you should do is write a draft article (not a review! See WP:NOR, WP:NOT) at User:JerryMcFarts/Pligg, taking care that it meets our standards WP:N and WP:V, among others. Then you should ask people at WP:DRAW whether it's good enough to go live, and if it is, please come back here again and ask that your draft be made an article. You may ask for help at WP:DRAW or WP:HD at any time.  Sandstein  21:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• What Sandstein said. Stifle ( talk) 23:06, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Indeed. I see that someone doesn't like your username (see your talk page User talk:JerryMcFarts). Sorry about that. Please persevere. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Europa Corp. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

This company is notable film production and distribution company for France and Japanese market. Pierre411 ( talk) 05:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Note this appears to be Luc Bessons distributiom company in france and has interwiki links to articles in French and Chinese. fr:EuropaCorp & zh:歐羅巴影業. None of the articles has sources so far. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• As deleting admin, I am so very much surprised that this the creator of the article made this request without asking me first why it was deleted. Others will know what to say so I will now hold my peace. Pegasus  «C¦ T» 09:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy-deletion as a valid application of criterion A7. The sole usable content of the page was "Europa corp is a french distibutor of films directed by Luc Besson." (The list of their film offerings was clearly inappropriate advertising-like content. The link to the IMDB page and to the company's webpage demonstrate merely that an organization by this name exists. No evidence was available through either link about the company itself. I find no assertion of any significance.
  Note: the fact that the prior version was speedy-deleted should not be taken as a prohibition on writing a new, sourced article. Be bold. When doing so though, please be sure that the company meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criterion for organizations. Rossami (talk) 17:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturnsee below Reasonable attempt to start an article. A company distributing such major films might well be notable, and the place to discuss it is AfD. DGG ( talk) 19:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse perfectly good speedy deletion per Rossami. As always, speedy deletion is not a permanent bar on the article's existence; recreation is in order if notability is asserted (although it would also need to be proven in order to keep the article in the longer term). Stifle ( talk) 23:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a valid A7, but I would like to note that this was nominated two minutes after creation, so there was still every reason to believe that the article was being worked on and expanded when the tag was slapped on it. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC). reply
• List at AfD. All good faith contested CSD#A7s should be allowed an AfD discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:17, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Permit recreation per me and stifle--the simple solution here. DGG ( talk) 21:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Nick Savoy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)) Savoy, Nick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD))

He is a prominent member of the seduction community with reliable outside sources to verify. His page conforms the standards of Wikipedia, better than the other seduction gurus' pages. The deletion of this page was done for invalid reasons other than just looking at its history of the page. The current is new and updated to meet the WP standards. After approval of two administrators, the page went live. Can anyone revive this page? Camera123456 ( talk) 07:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Note 1- The AfD for this article is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savoy, Nick Zsinj ^Talk 10:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for that. I should have pointed it out. However, I do want to emphasize that this is NOT challenging the original AfD. Rather, this is a new article that (in theory) fixed the problems with the original one, such as linking directly to third-party sources. Also, it takes into account all of the new media pieces (FHM, Maxim, Globe and Mail, Radar, etc.) from the past 8 or so months since the original article was deleted. Thanks and sorry for the confusion. Camera123456 ( talk) 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Note 2-

1. — 38.98.1.215 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
2. — 70.59.194.107 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
3. — 91.150.223.134 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
4. — Coaster7 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
5. — JerryMcFarts ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
6. — Passion8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
7. — Pierre411 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
8. — Shylesson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
9. — SjefC ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
10. — Thefayth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
11. — TimmyBx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• • Note It's not surprising that many people who are familiar with Savoy's work have come here. There is a public post about it on The Attraction Forums (www.theattractionforums.com) which I'm sure has generated visitors. That shouldn't take away from the significant number of people with a long editing history here who have also expressed support for the page like WoodenBuddha, Mathmo, SecondSight and others below. Dismiss some opinions if you like, but they really shouldn't count AGAINST the work we're doing. Otherwise, it would be too easy to shut down a page by logging on anonymously to support it. Camera123456 ( talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Note In addition, some of the people cited in that last don't appear to have been involved in this discussion here. I'm not sure of their relevance, except that it makes it look like Coaster7 and I are organizing sock puppets - an unfounded accusation made below, which seems to violate wp:agf. Camera123456 ( talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure (keep deleted) pending the presentation of independent, reliably sourced evidence. This was a complicated close and it would have been helpful if the closer had put more of his/her analysis in the closing comments. As is, we are left to reinterpret the closure rationale ourselves.
  In my own analysis of the closure, I discounted several of the comments as either deliberately duplicative or suspiciously new users. The comments of established users all focused on the lack of sources demonstrating that the subject meets Wikipedia's generally accepted inclusion criteria for biographies. None of those arguing to keep the page provided answers to those concerns. (Some examples of passing references and human interest news stories in which he was used as an example or source were offered but, from the comments of the participants, those were not considered sufficient. For the purposes of establishing notability, sources need to be primarily about the subject, not merely examples used in an article about a larger topic.) No new evidence has been offered here. I find no process problems with the closure of this discussion. Rossami (talk) 18:24, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. I was contacted via e-mail to assist in restoring this article, which was supposedly deleted for no reason (now I find it had been through AFD). Arriving at it taking a read (I found it to be already here at DRV), I have read the rationale for retention, as well as the previous AFD and the comments above. I fail to see notability in this person. Pending a major rewrite and a lot of sourcing, I cannot see this article being kept. In addition, the article reads like a PR-esque bio, not exactly of encyclopedic quality. I would go so far as to say these comments also apply to Love Systems, but that article is not in question here. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 20:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete I'm sorry, I should have been more precise here. The original article several months ago was deleted because of lack of notable sources. This was in part because the original authors, of which I was one, linked to major media sources through Savoy's own bio page (saved me the work of searching for all of them). It turned out that this looked like a lot of self-published sources, so this time around, I made sure to link to the original sources themselves. In addition, there have also been a lot more media appearances including the headline story for the Dr Phil Show, Spike TV, two stories in the Globe and Mail, Maxim, Radar Magazine, a regular monthly column in FHM Online, a two-part extensive newscast on Fox News, consulting to the VH-1 Show The_Pick-up_Artist_(TV_series), as well as a smattering of more minor publications, and so on. I spoke with some Admins before reviving this project, and tried to be careful to do it right this time. I also had some conflict with one of the Admins who i thought was being unhelpful and rude when I was first new to Wikipedia, who is the person who deleted it again this time around. I don't want to get into another fight, but this is what happened on his talk page this time. It seems like the page of "Nick Savoy" got deleted. I've modified the page so it met the guidelines of wikipedia, and after approval of several wikipedia contributors (Mathmo and SecondSight), the page went live. The page was not an exact replica of the old "Nick Savoy" page, but modified so it met the standards and cleaned up. Could you please revive the page? Camera123456 (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2008 (UTC) * He still sounds like a thoroughly nauseating guy. Take him to deletion review. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC). I didn't think that an opinion of whether someone is "nauseating" was supposed to matter one way or another. In addition, Nick Savoy has been listed as a prominent member of the seduction community ( Seduction_community) and is referenced on several other pages - not by me - including mystery method and publications in the seduction community (which I can't seem to find right now). The page is a work in a progress, I pop in every couple of weeks, but there is some negative stuff and a controversy section and I'm looking to add more. Finally, to respond to Rossami's specific comment, most of the major media pieces referenced (Dr Phil, Radar, one of the Globe and Mail pieces, Fox News, etc are about Savoy and Love Systems, not general interest pieces. Finally, I would compare all of the third-party notable sources here to other pages such as carlos_xuma, zan_perion, pickup_101, Juggler_(pick-up_artist), Owen_cook, etc. Not that two wrongs make a right, but these people are all listed as "prominent members of the seduction community" and appear to have less third party notability. Camera123456 ( talk) 21:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Can't say you've convinced me. In fact, I'd say most of the articles in this genre seem to be pretty sub-par. ^ demon ^{[omg plz]} 22:11, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Compared to the other pages within the same genre, Nick Savoy's page seems more notable than the others by looking at the third-party resources. The fact that more people have worked on Savoy's page should credit him his notability. Coaster7 ( talk) 01:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Coaster7 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• I don't see a major reason to reverse the AFD, but I could see it going either way. Neutral. Stifle ( talk) 23:09, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion — the flood of sock and sleeper accounts which has shown up has changed my mind. Stifle ( talk) 12:57, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Why should these extra users change your mind? Please take less notice of them and more heed of the arguments put forward by the long term members who have voted for this article to be kept (such as myself). Besides, those recent editors can still have made well thought out points that shouldn't be ignored such as Coaster7 saying how the article which was deleted only had references from the lovesystems website? Thus it is understandable how it could have been deleted, yet this current new article is much more well rounded and covers all the major points of problems from before. Thanks for your consideration. Mathmo ^Talk 10:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Undelete - looking at the list of Selected Media Appearences, it seems he hits Notability at this point. Seems like the last debate really came down to that, and a lack of notable sources. I like to think of Wikipedia in terms of Use Cases - why are people using it? In general, to further research a topic they've heard about. Several radio interviews, a couple of TV interviews, numerous print articles - at this point, there's going to be a fair number of people who want to know more, and a publically editable article from a trusted source seems like a good start. Honestly? The article could do with a LOT of work - perhaps that could be made a condition of the undeletion. But "article needs work" is not the same as "keep deleted". Someone talked previously about a 'Walled Garden' - a small amount of research suggests that this is either laziness or inability to find the original sources where the references link back to the Love Systems site. Again - a sign the article needs work, rather than a sign that it should be nuked. WoodenBuddha ( talk) 23:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete - I'm with WoodenBuddha on this point. At the last deletion, the point was that the links were all pointing to just one source so it lended no credibility. In addition, no third-party notability was enforced at that point. However, the new page strictly follows the notability and third-party sources to verify it's notability. If the articles needs some editing, please edit the article with notes that it needs to be edited, but don't delete it. Gives others an opportunity to edit the page so it does 100% comply to the WP standards. Undelete. Coaster7 ( talk) 23:55, 6 November 2008 (UTC) — Coaster7 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Overturn, has had many media appearances in recent times (for instance Dr Phil etc). Mathmo ^Talk 01:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete The article, as explained already by Camera123456, has been rewritten to address the concerns stated in the original AfD. The new article cites several sources that more than address WP:N. Some of the specific information in the article could use citations, but that's a candidate for cleanup, not deletion. From reading the history on this one, it really sounds like there's a specific admin with an axe to grind, rather than any legit argument to delete. -- Tkrpata ( talk) 01:49, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete I posted some cleanup points that are likely important to this discussion in the talk section, but there are other points that should be added. From the various appearances it is clear that Savoy is one of the central figures in the Seduction Community, although there are sections of the page that include a little too much marketing information on products, instead of focus on his contributions to community knowledge. The court case directly between Savoy and Mystery of VH1, which is talked about on the Mystery Method Corp page, should be added as that can be independently verified through court documents through sites like justia.com. Although in general there are few good primary sources in this industry, it is important to maintain a reliable repository of information on the major persons in the community as best we can. Savoy is one of the few figures who has any recognition outside of amateur blogs. Passion8 ( talk) 03:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Passion8 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Note Wow, I really appreciate the feedback. I was so proud of everything I'd done so far, I had no idea how much was left to go. It's great to get so many experienced wiki editors in here to help make this page (if it survives) excellent. I'm excited about refining, adding more specific knowledge contributions, copying or summarizing the MM controversy section, and so on. I'm going to make this page perfect before I build any other pages though :) Camera123456 ( talk) 03:46, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete per Tkrpata. Article is improved to the point of being policy compatible. I don't understand why some editors don't think it is notable, because I am seeing a bunch of sources conferring notable in the article, plain as the light of day. I can only guess that those editors scrolled straight to the References section, and missed Select Media Appearances section. I will quote it here:

• • FHM Online Article [1]
  • Appearance on Dr Phil episode "Women Beware" [2]
  • Games Radar Article [3]
  • Spike TV [4]
  • Maxim.com Article [5]
  • Right Wing News Interview [6]
  • Interviewed by CBS Radio [7]
  • The Ranger Online Article [8]
  • Interview with Brink Magazine (Hong Kong) [9]
  • Quoted in the Globe & Mail [10]
  • WWWT radio interview [11]

The problem is that these sources (which include appearances in national news and TV) aren't properly incorporated into the article, while only one of the current sources actually referenced is a reliable source, which may make the subject appear less notable than he actually is. This is a problem with the way the article is written (in addition to some original research and tone issues), not with the existence of this article. The solution is for the article to be undeleted and improvement continued. The sources above should be cited as references in the article, rather than being in a Select Media Appearances section. Primary editor seems enthusiastic about improving the page and making it policy-compatible, and it's a shame that he appears to have been bitten -- SecondSight ( talk) 04:24, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Looks like a very good start. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Undelete The articles needs some cleanup but the main editors seem enthusiastic in improving the article. There's no need to delete this article, since the third-party sources show his creditability and notability. Improvement in writing and style is necessary to make it look more like an objective Wikipedia page (seems like the editors have been working on it meanwhile since the deletion review). No need to delete this article. TimmyBx ( talk) 17:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — TimmyBx ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Undelete According to the criteria for speedy deletion, the administrator pointed at G4. However, the following quote does not apply to this article: "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted." The current article is substantially different from the article that was deleted several months ago for valid reasons. Thus, the claim of having a "substantially identical" article does not apply. Handrem ( talk) 22:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC) — Handrem ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Update A few of us have jumped in and done most of the proposed revisions (though I personally plan to keep working on the methodology stuff - it's just not the easiest to always be able to summarize since it seems to have changed over time. Anyway, I added the requested by Passion8 section on the involvement with Mystery and Mystery Method as best I can, but would appreciate any help on that section too, since those court documents are long. Camera123456 ( talk) 17:16, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - All the blogs, websites, and sock and sleeper accounts (per Stifle) do not add up to sufficient Wikipedia reliable source material to overcome the AfD deletion resions. Interviews of Savoy, at least his responses, are not independent of Savoy. The one Wikipedia reliable source I found, theglobeandmail.com, is used in the article only to source where Savoy lives. I don't see the above noted significant Wikipedian efforts to improve the article improving the article to meet Wikipedia article standards or overcome the reasons for the AfD deletion. -- Suntag ☼ 11:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Note Savoy's page is more prominent than most other people of the seduction community. He has more media appearances than other people and from reliable sources such as an appearance on Dr Phil. If you compare his page to Carlos Xuma (who is only filled with commercial links), Lance Mason (which redirects to a company with less sources), and Tyler Durden who only has sources influenced by him, it's clear that most seduction people pages aren't perfect. All these people are on the list of "pioneers of the seduction community". It should be clear that this deletion will affect other people in the seduction community with articles on Wikipedia. Instead, we should all improve the articles to comply to WP standards. This page underwent those changes and should stay up. Coaster7 ( talk) 18:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC) — Coaster7 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Undelete No need to delete this page. His page seems fine and several articles seem to be adding enough credibility. Shylesson ( talk) 00:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC) — Shylesson ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Overturn This is unnecessary. The current article is vastly different from the AfD article of couple months back. The sources look fine too. Compared to most other biographies on Wikipedia, this one should stay. According to the be bold article, that is what the editors have done to overcome this deletion review. Keep the page. Thefayth ( talk) 00:44, 13 November 2008 (UTC) — Thefayth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse deletion, but userfy. I'm not convinced he's notable, as the current sources are mostly on his web site and not obviously tracable to real sources (i.e., we can use a page on web site to note a courtesy copy, but we need the original broadcast information for copies of broadcasts, and the original publication data for copies of print articles.) If all the information in the article were sourced, I'd lean toward notability. For what it's worth, we are not deciding whether the deletion decision was correct, but whether it followed the correct process. (As an aside, the lawsuit should not be mentioned unless there are third-party (neither Savoy's nor Mystery's organizations) sources that it's notable, per WP:PRIMARY. Similarly, his relationship status shouldn't be listed unless a third party finds it notable, or it's noted on his web site.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • Note Aren't we? This is NOT the same page as the one that got deleted last year or whenever it was. It's a new page. Or if someone slaps up a bad page about a topic, and that page gets deleted, does that mean that no one can ever make a page on that topic again? That the only grounds are that the wrong procedures were followed when it was deleted the first time? I was involved last time, and while I found the Administrator's comments suggesting a personal involvement or antipathy to the subject, I don't really want to get into that again, so I'm prepared to accept that the deletion of the previous page was appropriate. But now a bunch of us have been doing a new page. If this isn't the right forum for it, what is? We're still working on changing all of the references, many have been changed already as you can see in the newest version. Camera123456 ( talk) 03:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Undelete The page is fine and conforms to the standards. His sources seem to credit his notability and the page is now rewritten in npov. Ajaykumarmeher ( talk) 05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Undelete - Quoting from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Any_biography , «The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field». The seduction field is widely known due to media coverge and books, and Mr. Nick Savoy has definitely made a contribution for the field worth of mentioning, which include, quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Creative_professionals «(...)originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.» and that are explained in detail on his page. Mr. Savoy also fits the basic criteria having been «(...)the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.» from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIO#Basic_criteria An1MuS 10:58, 13 November 2008 (UTC) reply