Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1.800.Vending

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus to delete, therefore keep. Bucketsofg 21:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1.800.Vending

1.800.Vending (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

This article is of a corporation that is not notable. Only primary sources (FTC pages, Better Business Bureau, and the company's website itself) have been used as sources to construct this article. Nothing of consequence ever seems to have been written about this company by third parties. This constitutes original research. Further, the primary editors of this article seem to be the principals, and various people upset at the fact that the principals have edited the article. This article was put up for deletion in 2005, with no consensus here. Disclaimer: I have no personal stake in this matter. Quatloo 07:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

  • If I were one of the owners, I wouldn't want this article on Wikipedia, so I don't see a WP:COI or WP:SPAM problem right now. That being said, I think the company makes a product notable within its industry, but that's not what the article is really about right now, and the company does not seem to meet WP:CORP. I also agree that it seems like there is WP:OR going on in the article. Given all these problems, and the relative stagnation of the article since the last AfD, I say delete. --JaimeLesMaths (talk!edits) 09:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. There has been considerable press about this company and the surrounding litigation. This reason alone is sufficient to make the company notable under WP:CORP. The article itself should be rewritten to be more encyclopedic, but I doubt that'll happen seeing as it has become a battlefield for interested parties. Owen× ☎ 15:49, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not all fraud is notable. All results on Google News Archive are ads. Fails WP:CORP, and WP:COI seals the deal here. Seems like a way to present their side of the story when hardly anybody even cares.--Dhartung | Talk 23:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • keep fraud with a substantial press is notable. If npov is needed, supply it.DGG 04:30, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
The point is that there is no "press" for it, much less "substantial press." Quatloo 10:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
*keep This article is both of interest to the public and in the public interest. To delete it would smake of corporate censorship. Zomghax 15:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Closing admin's remark: this was the fourth edit of this editor and was discounted.
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.