Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primerica Financial Services

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 keep. VoiceOfReason 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primerica Financial Services

Suggest that company does not meet Notability Criteria for companies and corporations. Article has persisted in a grossly NPOV state for some time. Representatives of the company itself have moved in on article, instituted a blatantly ad-like tone, and stymied neutralizing efforts. Anazgnos 21:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I understand your frustration, and a look at the history shows that your concerns aren't unfounded. But the entity itself appears to easily be notable. There are other ways of dealing with repeated vandalism (which deliberately inserting NPOV material is.) VoiceOfReason 22:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If we could just specify which of the criteria for notability the company actually meets... Anazgnos 22:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• (rm'd copy-paste of WP:CORP; people can read it there) A Google News or Yahoo News search for the company name finds multiple mentions in the independent press, which suffices. VoiceOfReason 22:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, definitely a notable company, but it does need cleanup. I'll put the article in my watchlist and help guard it from spamvertisement. Aplomado ^talk 22:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• The last set of revisions along with the hope of more impartial oversight in the future is fine by me. Thanks. Anazgnos 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Primerica, a subsidiary of Citigroup? Clearly meets WP:CORP. Any remaining cleanup, NPOV, edit-war, etc. issues are not a matter for AfD. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP How can an entity that provides products and services to more than 6 million clients worldwide not fall in to the catagory of a company? As for the stated criteria, I believe that AM Best rates Primerica A++ for life insurance, which happens to be the cornerstone product of the company. Since AM Best is an independent entity, I believe that Primerica meets the criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Idrive300 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - Idrive300's lone edit to Wikipedia has been on this AfD, which definitely tends to lend credence to Anazgnos's claims of corporate interference. But the apparent bad conduct of Primerica's employees doesn't change the fact that their company is notable. It does mean that I'm certainly not going to ever be one of their customers, however :) VoiceOfReason 14:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I'm prepared to call off the deletion campaign (since I started it), unless these things are supposed to run for a set amount of time...Anazgnos 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Administrators are known to stop an AfD early if there's a clear consensus. As far as I know, if the initiator of an AfD withdraws the nomination that doesn't automatically mean an admin will end the discussion, but it usually happens. What the heck, I'll be bold and close it myself. VoiceOfReason 17:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

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.