Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté (second nomination)

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 userfied. Sr13 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VíaVienté

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

This article is a substantially different rewrite from the text considered in the first AfD, helpfully undertaken with aid of the closing admin thereof. DRV permitted its move into mainspace, with the suggestion that -- since notability concerns still exist even with the new article -- it be taken to AfD as well. Weak Delete, citing notability concerns, pending other opinions. Xoloz 15:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It looks like a condensed version of the deleted article. It's nice that contributer trimmed the most obviously promotional material from this MLM, but it has no substantive RS coverage. Fails the GNAA test for notability (it cites, for example, a local TV show that merely mentions the existence of said product). Cool Hand Luke 15:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is still appalling spam, even as condensed. (Who cares that ViaViente paid Time for an advertisement or has held clinical trials? Successful clinical trials published in peer-reviewed medical journals are notable. The existence of clinical trials for a privately-held company are not.) The one puff-piece in the Dallas Morning News (which almost reads like a paid advertisement, rather than journalism) takes it to the cusp of notability, but not quite there, especially for a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million. (I also wonder how that DMN article was found, given that there's no link to it on the craigkeeland website that it comes from, but that's neither here nor there.) THF 15:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I have worked tirelessly trying to make this article better. All I get from nay-sayers is constant complaining without suggestions on how to make things better. There is MORE than ample 3rd party documentation available. To Users Cool Hand Luke and TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your beef seems to be with MLM or network marketing companies (though ViaViente is not officially an MLM company) as opposed to this particular article. That is POV and, though I am fairly new to the editing world of wiki, I understand is not reason to cause for delete. Furthermore, for user TedFrank, I respectfully point out that your saying that the company is "a pyramid scheme with annual sales of $36 million" is incorrect. Some would even consider it libelous since a pyramid scheme is an illegal structure. If you have some beef with the business model of network marketing then that is your right, but it doesn't mean that the companies themselves are not noteworthy. I honestly have no idea what "promotional" ideas you are talking about. Everything is dated as to when pieces premiered. It is not a commercial, it is a expose.Arnabdas 19:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:N. That the article verges on incoherence in some places and is unintentionally humorous in others (I especially like the "management team" that consists of a single guy) doesn't help matters. Hell, it doesn't even say what the company's product is. Deor 19:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

There was ample information on the product, but people deleted it. It is pretty frustrating trying to work with people who do not offer productive suggestions. I was editing it all in my own section several weeks ago. Then all of a sudden without me knowing I see today that it was moved to the main wikipedia. It should be given a chance to be made better, not deleted.Arnabdas 21:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

To answer your query on my talk page: The two sections that I deleted were the ingredients and the endorsements, both spam. Sr13 02:57, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Could you please give me a guideline to follow so we can improve the article. Although he is a very satisfied customer and that was his motivation to highlight the company, Terry Bradshaw's piece on MSNBC wasn't an advertisement. It was a spotlight, which is different. Therefore it should be included. Also, could you give me the basis on what grounds you called both of them spam i.e. the official wiki policy guidelines that I may read up on so we may improve the article (as opposed to irrational and IMO hasty deletion) and not allegedly violate wiki procedures? Thanks.Arnabdas 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Bradshaw promoted (i.e. endorsed) the product, a claim that won't make the article any more notable than it is. Celeberties would endorse anything, even non-notable subjects. Worst of all (as well as the several other endorsements), that claim isn't sourced! The appropriate guidelines are WP:N, WP:RS, WP:SPAM, and WP:NOT. Sr13 22:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what the difference is between your definition of promotion and spotlighting. If Barbara Walters interviews Bill Clinton, does that mean she automatically endorses him? From what you're telling me it is. Privately she may endorse him, but that interview is still considered notable and objective if she phrases her questions correctly. For the record, Bradshaw has done a promotional video for the company, but the first video that was first aired on MSNBC was NOT a promotional piece. The broadcast rights were lost to the video, so I can't get a link to it, but I did put down the date of when it was aired. How would you suggest I handle the sourcing?

On the note about the ingredients, I do not understand what grounds that constitutes spam...especially considering that Xango entry has the same exact thing done on that page, albeit not in its own section.

Once again I ask that this article not be deleted, but archived under my name. Let me work on it privately until there is no dispute of standards. I was doing that and then all of a sudden it was published as an entry in wikipedia without my knowledge. Furthermore, the gutting that took place makes it worse. It needs work, not the axe.Arnabdas 14:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from using your userspace to draft a better article. But we're debating this one, not some future hypothetical one, and this one has had several months to get fixed, and hasn't been yet. THF 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You mention that it is ok to use my userspace to draft a better article? I wouldn't mind doing that at all. Last time it was moved there for me. Could you explain the procedure that can be done to move it? Thanks.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I've done the best I can with this article with the available sources. If you can do better, go ahead and do so. I brought the article to DRV because the last edit you made to it was almost three weeks prior, which made me a bit concerned. Sr13 17:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to sound snide at all, but I do have a life outside wikipedia and many obligations. I don't always have the time to spend my life editing. Past couple of weeks I have been on more because I had a project at work I finished so I have had more time. I actually e-mailed the communications director of the company and informed her of the situation. The sources are there, but we are just trying to get the actual citations so that they meet wiki standards. I would appreciate it being moved back to my userspace, but not deleted because despite my limited time I have contributed a lot to it and would hate to have my work destroyed.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment I've done as much as I could to improve the article after request, and if the best I can do can't meet guidelines, than it's fine with me to delete. Sr13 20:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Proposed to be Under Construction I put in an under construction tag. I propose to keep the article while helping it become better. Arnabdas 18:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment. It's been "under construction" since September 2006, and is still wildly substandard, with no indication that it's going to improve. My Delete vote doesn't change. If you want to play in a sandbox in your userspace, go ahead, but I have no indication that there is a notable Wikipedia article to be made out of this mess. THF 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sadly, I'm going to have to agree. Even with some sources, it isn't enough for a Wikipedia article, no matter how much effort is put into it. Sr13 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. Everything I source could find through google and from news databases seem to be in the article already. Perhaps in the future it might be a notable subject with non-trivial coverage in reliable sources, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Cool Hand Luke 20:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll accept that. If you guys can help me move it back to my userspace that would be appreciated. I want to be able to work on it at my own pace. I appreciate you guys giving me the chance to make it better instead of destroying my work altogether. I will message one of you when I feel it could be ready for publishing. Thank you.Arnabdas 15:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you should be looking at WP:WELCOME, which, really, you should have done before creating the article and criticizing the people who had read the rules and were simply applying them. THF 22:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I was criticizing the lack of constructive criticism. Of course we all should follow the rules. My point was instead of just coming down on me, why not help guide me and offer up suggestions? It is far more productive that way.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to my userspace. Will contact one of you later to get your thoughts on notability.Arnabdas 15:17, 13 July 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.