Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VíaVienté

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 delete, with no prejudice toward recreation, provided it passes the problems cited below. Sr13 02:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] VíaVienté

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

Spam for pyramid scheme. THF 22:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not see relevence to this point. Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Advertising. Supported exclusively by self-published claims. Not many reliable sources exist for this product, which suggests it non-notability. Delete. Cool Hand Luke 00:20, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

There are media clips done by the WB network affilliate in Dallas as well as specific date mentions to Dallas Morning News, MSNBC, CNBC and CNN Headline News. Some don't have the actual links, but the dates of the articles and segments have been published. I don't understand what more you really want.Arnabdas 20:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 01:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. Web hits are primarily first party or otherwise promotion-orientated. Clearly intended as advertorial. Adrian M. H. 15:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Flunks WP:CORP and WP:SPAM. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 22:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete reads like spam. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete nothing usable on google news, is advertisement --h2g2bob (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
• KEEPThe article is written in NPOV. Some negative press is given to the company, including a removal by Dr. Leaf's endorsement of the village the company is partnered with as well as a rescinding of the IASC certification. User TedFrank obviously does not know what a pyramid scheme is and is using someone's biased opinion to define it. There is no endorsement of the product or the company. Some references need to be cited and are in the process of being done, but the content is completely valid. Any link not given to the actual source is given by a date and venue of where it happened (e.g. Terry Bradshaw's promotion on MSNBC January 3, 2005). If you're going to have entries on Microsoft, Wal-Mart, etc then I don't understand why one won't have an entry here. People are welcome to put up criticisms of the company if they want. It should be cleaned up, NOT deleted. Arnabdas 16:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate any suggestions on how to re-write the article by any of the people here who do call it spam. Please message me if you have specific suggestions on how it should be reworded, or feel free to reword it yourself. Arnabdas 17:00, 11 June 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.