Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura

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 per consensus. No delete vote. PeaceNT 09:12, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scentura

Scentura (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

nn company [1] Mzlc 09:57, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, if the references can be verified. With that amount of news coverage, it's obviously notable, but it's suspicious that most of the newspaper report footnotes link to one piece on an advocacy website, [2]. Sandstein 13:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am the creator of this article.
  1st There has been over a twenty news reports and a major appelate court ruling on this company, so it is hardly non-notable. The "non-notable" link which Mzlc provides[3] has 3,350 hits on google. Exceeds all the requirements for Wikipedia:Notability.
  2nd The footnotes link to Ripoff Report because ripoffreport.com is the only site which has these articles. I checked LexisNexis and all of these articles are available there. I can move these articles to another site if needed. Calendar 15:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

The article gives the original source as well, and that should be enough. Keep DGG 04:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I've worked for this company and tell you first hand the article describes a factual description of the company —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamjames (talk • contribs) 20:09, 21 February 2007 (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.