Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldVentures (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. Arguments about notability and sourcing concerns are convincing and not adequately refuted. ‑Scottywong | chatter _ 18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WorldVentures

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

Promotional article for a non-notable pyramid scheme. Entirely sourced of 404 errors, an NBA article (?), "company profiles" and random internet listings. Laurent (talk) 15:00, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I can't help feel that this is somehow a personal issue for Laurent. I have corrected the broken 404 links to the Manifest Foundation website, as well as added additional references including coverage from industry publication Direct Selling News and a recent development involving Big Brothers Big Sisters. As to the "random internet listings" I completely disagree. The company was featured in the DSN 100, which is an industry accolade, the founders were nominated for Ernst & Young's Entrepreneur of the Year award, and the company was in the top 1000 of the Inc. 5000. Those hardly seem to be "random internet listings" and all point to the notability of the company. It may not be the MOST notable company on Wikipedia, but it's hardly a candidate for deletion. Virgil06 (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

—Tom Morris (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete Agree with nom regarding WP:PROMO; the artcile as written completely whitewashes the subject. Judging by the article history, any negative information regarding the company has been slowly edited away in the past year or so. I would argue that the company satisfies WP:GNG given its membership and the amount of compaints it has generated. WorldVentures appears to be akin to Mary Kay or Vector Marketing. None but shining hours (talk) 16:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent some time looking for WP:RS in order to demostrate what I had asserted above. While there are articles from various local and college newspapers from around country, I hardly think that these establish WP:CORP and especially not WP:CORPDEPTH. I had also mentioned before that I felt the article was heavy on WP:PROMO content. As such, I have struck my weak keep vote. None but shining hours (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCORP:[1][2] and current ref1. -- Trevj (talk) 10:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete inappropriate promotional article with no true significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The only significant coverage is the article from Direct Selling News, which I'm not entirely sure should be considered either entirely independent or reliable, since it exists to promote the industry. In fact, it's possible the article for that magazine is a candidate for deletion itself, as it is also lacking in any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The Success From Home source is iffy at best, since we don't know what "featured" means, and there's no reason to think another marketing magazine is a solid reliable source. All of the other sources are either not independent or trivial mentions. For example, the "WorldVentures CEO Mike Azcue Named a Director of BBBS International" source is a company press release, the two Manifest Foundation sources are not independent of the article's subject, and the NBA and BBBS links are trivial, the latter of which might only establish notability for Azcue, not the company. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 20:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—After checking each source individually, I have to agree with Torchiest. Most cited sources are not reliable. Those that are reliable are trivial mentions. The awards and recognitions granted (Inc. Top 1000, etc.) do not, individually, infer notability. They would support notability, if other, independent coverage existed, but on their own... not so much. I would expect that if the company was controversial (as hinted above) that there should be some reliable coverage of the controversy... if something like that is found and added I would change my position, but for now, not enough notability to satisfy the GNG. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 21:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Comment I strongly disagree with both Torchiest and Liveitup. The direct selling industry is $25+B, and Direct Selling News is the most well-known and respected publication covering it. So, despite your lack of familiarity, articles in there should not be deemed unreliable. Further, to be named one of the 100 largest direct sales companies worldwide, independent of the publication, should be considered notable. I'm also not sure how being listed as one of the Inc. 5000 isn't notable. However, I found another article from D Magazine that fleshes out the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year nomination for the Founders/Execs. Surely between Inc., D Magazine (a prominent Dallas area publication), and Direct Selling News this passes WP:GNG and WP:CORP. Additionally, I'm willing to revisit its history and re-instate content you deemed "white-washed out" if that will provide further grounds for keeping it. Virgil06 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
- Not sure who "you" is, but you can only !vote once in an AfD discussion. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Torchiest, I'm definitely in the "novice" editor category and this is the first time I've really been engaged in a deletion debate like this. I thought it was more of a back-and-forth kind of discussion, not a pure vote. My apologies. I was trying to address several of the notes, the "you" referred to None but shining hours' whitewash comment. Looks like since we've been discussing, that Rhode Island Red has been making some edits. It's definitely a shorter stub now, and any of the weaker content that might have been considered WP:PROMO is gone. So given the cross-section of coverage (again: Inc., Direct Selling News, and D Magazine), it definitely should be considered WP:GNG.Virgil06 (talk) 05:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the reasons for deletion stated above by Torchiest and Liveitup. Coverage is fleeting and trivial; sources are questionable. DSN is a lobby organization for multi-level marketing companies. Rhode Island Red (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2012 (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.