Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netbux

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Mackensen (talk) 04:17, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Netbux

Wikipedia is not a place to advertise multi-level marketing schemes. MLM's are illegal in many countries. Delete.-gadfium 19:37, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep: Wikipedia should be a place to document MLM schemes (which certainly has an instructive character). We have articles on all kinds of dubious and criminal organizations and scams, and Wikipedia is often one of the better sources on them. So for me it's really a question of whether this is a notable MLM scheme. If in fact 13'000 people fell for it in roughly a week, it's going to be a notable RSN. Rl 21:26, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Change my vote to Delete. Fortunately, this particular scam doesn't look like it's ever going to become notable now. I still find it's an interesting variant because it involves ripping off third parties, but that's presumably the very reason it's not going anywhere. Rl 12:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Illegal. RickK 22:18, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Note to RickK: Yes of course its illegal. But as RI said, whether a scheme is legal or not, wikipedia is in my opinion one of the best places to document it. 13,000 people in one week is not a small number, and the amount of places i am beginning to see referral id's is so alarming that i am sure this MLM will be a big one. Sure, wikipedia aint a place to promote MLM's, but it is a place to document them. THE KING 23:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Advertising. Paradiso 01:31, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as blatant advertising for a week-old scam site. Agree that they should be documented, but only those that have shown notability. This is just wrong. - Lucky 6.9 02:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, blatant commercial promotion. Allowing a keep for this would set a bad legal precedent for wikipedia. Megan1967 08:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Concur, delete. Radiant_* 08:19, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: I have now re-written the article. Please reconsider all the above delete votes. ------

It is no longer advertising, nor is it POVy in any way. Oh and if you think it is then don't complain here - fix it. THE KING 12:16, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your rewrite is certainly an improvement, except that you subtly readded the link to their website with a referral number in it. I've removed that, but your readding it shows a lack of good faith. In my opinion, the subject is still not worthy of being on Wikipedia.-gadfium 00:41, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. No sense in pumping up some minor scam's Google hits. --Calton | Talk 02:16, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Carlton, with no link to the actual website, we shouldn't be bumping up its google hits. THE KING 02:44, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • That's Calton, as the sig clearly reads. And it takes links for Google to pick up text on a page? Imagine my surprise. And do you mean links like this one on your user page, hmmm? I re-affirm my delete vote above, and only wish I could do so twice. --Calton | Talk 13:34, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Delete. Is there an independent verifiable source for that 15,000 people claim? --Irishpunktom\talk 14:52, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)
      • On the netbux home page, it says how many members it has. I have adjusted the page to reflect this. THE KING 01:22, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I came to this page looking for info on this site, and I found it. Not the best info, but it could be made into something much better. Perhaps background information, how they make money, ect. I think delelting this article would just be pointless. -Mark 68.43.49.65 (talk · contributions)
    • It need hardly be mentioned that this is this anon's only edit to Wikipedia. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Sorry, is this better? I don't think I've done much editing due to everything always being fixed by the time I click edit. Pests 02:31, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. And I note that it's shrinking very rapidly ([1]). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:55, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • To clear up the controversy about how many members netbux has, please check the homepage of netbux. The other day, it said 10,000 and i updated the page to reflect this. NOW they have 15,000+ members (plz check homepage if you dont believe me) and i am going to update the page again.
  • Keep. It is important to keep track of these schemes. As to its notability I recieved no less then 20 propositions in the past week about it so it is apparently notable enough. Falerin 18:55, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Note: user has 20 edits.
  • Keep. I wanted more info and found it. No reason not to document this. If wikipedia is concerned about commercial promotion, they should remove all pages containing references to corporate entities. I do agree that there should not be a link with a refferer ID in it coming from the wiki. 66.0.249.126 16:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • This bears an interesting resemblance to the comment & vote from 68.43.49.65 (talk · contribs) above. needless to say, this address has been used to make this edit only, and the earlier address hasn't been used to make any edits since its vote here. THE KING (talk · contribs) (who is apparently desperate to earn some money, and placed the referral link on his User page) seems also to be desperate for this article to be kept. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:19, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. I have heard from people saying this is legit. It's not commercial promotion if all of the other companies can have their pages. No reason that "NetBux" shouldn't be documented. --Randy 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • i am now updating the page, based on the stats on the front page of netbux. They now have 26,000 members - very notable! THE KING 03:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep in its current form, or merge with multi-level marketing or something similar. --SPUI (talk) 08:22, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Anyone can start their own mlm scheme and claim that they have 2500, 25000 or 250000 members on their website; this is still not a reason to mention it here. --Ktotam 14:41, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: THE KING left a nice note on my talk page asking me to reconsider my vote. While the article is better than it was, is it really an encyclopedia article? I fear this will balloon into yet another scheme to co-opt the site for furthering an agenda. IMO, this could be worse than all the Sollogs, GNAA's and pedophiles combined. Sorry King, but no change of vote. - Lucky 6.9 03:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • He left me a note as well. But I can't really find the 'substantial rewrite' he claims has occured. As such I don't really see a reason to change my vote. However, SPUI's suggestion of merging to multi-level marketing sounds like an appropriate alternative. Radiant_* 07:23, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems like a notable enough site. Moncrief 08:00, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.