Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alan Roger Currie (3rd 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 delete. Only argument for keep came from a highly involved editor. This is the third deletion for this topic, perhaps any future recreation/pitch for inclusion should go through AFC? KaisaL (talk) KaisaL (talk) 08:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Roger Currie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

promotional and non-notable . Earlier versions of this were deleted, and this not an improvement.

Promotional:

• overpersonal paragraph about his high school & college activities activities, which can be of no interest except to his associates, or, more likely in this case, to cause us to think of him in a positive light.
• the very non-specific career. *the attempt to describe in detail--with a numbered list-- his approach to relationship advice, along with section on his "views",--to the extent that it seems to serve as an advertisement for his publications. *wording like "has been held in various cities all over the world" or "using his popular nickname"
• extremely minor awards from groups in his own field
• the sort of puffery which makes it seem significant to have given a single lecture at a university.
• the sort of self-justification in section 2.3
• most tellingly, the use of quotes from himself to make up about half the article.

not notable:

• the need to make up the article from what he has said rather than what others say about him
• all of his books are apparently self-published--almost none even in WorldCat)
• there are no book reviews in any major publication.
• Half the references are his own press releases or publications
• the remainder are interviews where he says what he cares to, talk show appearances, and mere notices of his presentations in minor papers. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or at least get rid of the spam and WP:REFBOMBing with NINE citations to his own press releases. The rest of the sources are mainly his comments but not actually about him. Author is connected to the subject (obviously). Reywas92^Talk 08:59, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Clearly does not meet notability requirements. Indyguy (talk) 14:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR criteria #1 and criteria #2. Anyone who is familiar with the Attraction & Seduction Community or the Dating advice and Relationship advice genre of book authors and experts knows who Alan Roger Currie is; Pay special attention to criteria #2 under Creative Professionals. This is probably Currie's most valid criteria of the four listed; He is well-known internationally in the dating & relationships advice industry for creating The Four Modes of Verbal Communication; The vast majority of men's dating advice experts and attraction & seduction gurus featured on Wikipedia promote tactics which are misleading or manipulative; Currie was arguably the very first men's dating advice coach to promote the idea of upfront, straightforward honesty with women 1 and without any dishonesty or "manipulative head games" involved; Currie's Wikipedia page has existed now for just under five years. Currie has done nothing but gain even more credibility since the page was originally created back in 2007 or 2008. If you delete Currie's Wiki page, then you might as well delete any and all men who are associated with the infamous Attraction & Seduction Community, such as Erik von Markovik, Roosh V, Julien Blanc, Mark Manson, or just about any other 'expert' or 'guru' in the dating and relationships advice field. If editing is what needs to be done, then that is what should be done. But I see no valid reason for complete deletion of this article. Chicago Smooth (talk) 00:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Chicago Smooth, I was asked to comment here and I definitely agree with the delete votes: this article is very (self-)promotional. I recommend making a copy in your userspace and workshopping it there, removing all of the press releases. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:51, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked those pages just mentioned. I think there are reasons to question the notability of some, and I've indicated accordingly; there are reasons to doubt the promotional nature of almost all, and I've indicated accordingly. I'm keeping track of them all & a few other for eventual afds.. DGG ( talk ) 01:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply do not understand how an article about a man who is arguably the most internationally known professional dating coach is up for deletion. If this article is deleted, then who on Wikipedia truly represents the field of dating coaching?? I just examined some articles about Life Coaches such as Abiola Abrams, Simon T. Bailey, Tony Gaskins, Steve Pavlina, Zan Perrion, and Matthew Hussey. Are these representative of a well-written Wiki article? Or no? Chicago Smooth (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:WHATABOUTX. At a glance, Matthew Hussey is the only one which doesn't have obvious and serious problems. (It may have serious problems, but they aren't obvious). So what you are asking is also an admission that Wikipedia has a spam problem. The way to fix this is with better, independent sources, but the place to discuss other articles is on those articles' talk pages. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 3 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This article is overly promotional and needs to be removed from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Chicago Smooth asked me to comment. As I told that editor in 2015, relying on press releases is a bad idea, but Chicago Smooth more-or-less ignored my advice. Looking closer at these sources, they are worse than I initially thought. Further, I do not accept this editor's claims to not have a conflict of interest, as they have been a WP:SPA who's spent several years promoting this obscure personality based on sources that nobody else would care about. The article screams WP:AUTOBIO. Grayfell (talk) 00:19, 3 March 2020 (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.