Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melaleuca (company)

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The result of the debate was withdrawn by nominator. – Will (message me!) 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Melaleuca (company)

WP:CORP states: "A product or service is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: (1) The product or service has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the company itself." Google shows 412,000 hits for "melaleuca company" and even the most casual examination shows that many of them are obviously independent of the company. Melaleuca is also more notable than many of [the other 34 entries on other well-known MLM companies] I understand you may not have had time to do a lot of research in the 7 minutes between me creating the article and you voting to delete it; please give it a bit more consideration. The Crow 03:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Google does return multiple hits for "melaleuca company," but it seems as though over half of them say that this company is behind scams and fraud. This is certainly something that should be noted in the page. As of this moment, I maintain by vote for deletion. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I have 2 comments for that... (1) So you've googled it and found numerous allegations of fraud. Good. So you can see that notability is satisfied per WP:CORP by being mentioned by multiple independent sources. (2) If you've found something that should be noted on the page... well, anybody can edit Wikipedia, why don't you? The Crow 03:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
You're the expert, that's why. --דניאל - Dantheman531 03:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm don't claim to be an expert on this company. I just created the stub because I saw a need for it. I am not affiliated with the company in any way, shape, or form. I neither endorse nor discourage it. I am aware of it because I know a few people who have been involved in it. The Crow 12:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The Crow, you have seven five days until this AfD closes. If you find evidence of notability from non-trivial published works then I will change my vote. No point in arguing with us about it and filling up this AfD page.--Chaser T 03:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
I've added more notability info in my keep statement above, please refer to that. The Crow 12:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable unless evidence of importance is provided, like revenue and number of employees. Like porn actors, MLM companies have inflated Google results because of search engine spamming and also because of promotion/complaints/lawsuits by employees. There is some evidence that it is a scam - complaints, lawsuits and the fact that extract from the melaleuca tree has no proven health benefits. A company whose business is completely fraudulent has to be pretty big and/or scam a lot of people to be notable. -- Kjkolb 03:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Weak keep based on rewrite. -- Kjkolb 10:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and per WP:CORP Adambiswanger1 03:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:CORP. The presence of similar articles on Wikipedia does not necessarily validate particular articles, but may also point to the possibility that those articles are also flawed and merit deletion. Inclusion is not a criterion of validity, as anybody can create a page about anything here. Jammo (SM247) 05:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Based on Danielrocks' comments, I think the organisation does meet WP:CORP, although maybe not in the way they'd like. I'll add in a couple of references to detractors which should help with NPOV. Paddles TC 09:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Given the nature of the work done on the article in the last couple of days, "weak" no longer applies. Paddles TC 12:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not even notable for the allegations. Dlyons493 Talk 12:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Agree wioth Kjkolb that it is probably a scam full of quackery, and that MLMs lend themselves to manipulative promotions like Google-bombing. Still, the mention in Forbes suggests that this may be more noteworthy than others. Smerdis of Tlön 14:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article establishes notability. But it should have some mention of the fraud accusations. JoaoRicardotalk 17:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
If there's any legitimate accusation of fraud from a non-trivial source, by all means include it. We've included the brief passing mention from Quackwatch. MLMWatch doesn't seem to mention it at all. There's some grumblings on message boards and individual attack sites but those aren't really reliable or substantial sources. As I mentioned before, the company is a member of the Better Business Bureau with a satisfactory record so the fraud accusations have already been a suitable amount of space, in my estimation. The Crow 18:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment: Crow, I fail to see why these sources that are "are obviously independent of the company" (your response to my first vote) aren't reliable or substantial sources of fraud accusations.--Chaser T 18:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Saying a company is fraudulent is much more serious than saying it is notable. Accusations of fraud should be held to a more rigorous standard of reporting than that required for accusations of notability. At any rate, a company's questionable business practice is not a criterion for deletion; if you'd like to discuss the validity of fraud accusations then post them on Talk:Melaleuca (company) where I've already started a heading on this particular subject. The Crow 20:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep as company has been around for about 21 years (according to their website (it's a flash page, so I can't point you directly to it. Just go to this page, click on "What is Melaleuca?", then on "About Us"). Definitely notable. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with the above statment. This article has been written in a neutral tone and I feel that it has met the criterion listed in WP:CORP. Whether or not the company itself is a fradulent MLM is not for us to decide and should have no bearing as to the legitimacy of a corporation's notability. In any case, the company itself has been around for some time and has been noted in other independent resources, such as the above mentioned Forbes articles, thus making it of at least some sort of notability. Presidank 10:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete POV, most notable for allegations of fraud, notation of which is soft-pedaled as innocuous complaints. Tychocat 10:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
    • I've made the language stronger. We're discussing it on the article's talk page.--Chaser T 18:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article has been heavily rewritten to make the allegations of quackery, etc. stronger and more prominent, with references to reliable sources throughout. In light of this, I'd ask everyone to reconsider votes based on POV. There's not much more for notability, though I did turn up a newspaper article.--Chaser T 22:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. notable. you dont have to like multi-level marketing, but it meets the criteria of notability Joan-of-arc 02:03, 14 June 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.