Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White van speakers

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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] White van speakers

White van speakers (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I don't see why this is notable. It seems to have happened to lots of people, but so has burning toast when making breakfast, which doesn't deserve an article. The article mostly seems to be a "how to" guide - how to avoid this, what to look out for, what to do if it happens to you, what brands to avoid - which doesn't belong in Wikipedia Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 11:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete - Subject doesn't seem notable enough to warrant such a lengthy article. Perhaps a condensed entry in the article Confidence trick would be more appropriate? TicketMan - Talk - contribs 12:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; cited, notable article. Cleaning up HOWTO stuff is a matter for cleanup, not AfD. It has the cites, it's been noted by reliable sources, what more do we need?--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - but I don't see what makes this notable, which is my main point. If I created the hypothetical burning toast when making breakfast article I mentioned and found lots of reliable sources which referred to this, it still wouldn't be notable enough for an article. Bingobangobongoboo (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Why wouldn't burning toast when making breakfast be notable enough for an article? More importantly, whether or not your hypothetical article would be notable--a subject I hesitate to judge without an actual article before me--this is a complete article on a small but widespread subject. It's cited with enough reliable sources, it's certainly verifiable, and you've cited nothing nor even made an argument as to why it's not notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • If you created an article on a subject that has multiple published works from independent and reliable sources that discuss it in depth, then that subject is notable. See Wikipedia:Notability. You are applying notability wrongly. Notability is not subjective. Uncle G (talk) 16:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep; Like Prosfilaes, I believe this is probably worthy of some cleanup, but it has the cites, it's notable. -- Kaszeta (talk) 14:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep First I've heard of it, but the newspaper story is a nontrivial mention, and "This American Life" is nationally distributed by NPR. Clean up and keep. Xymmax (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The Post Gazette article, included as a ref, says it is a scam which has been around over 30 years, and always involves white vans. The National Public Radio coverage is another reliable reference. Pretty funny stuff. Edison (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Clean out the "how to/how to avoid" content if that is an issue, but keep the article. As far as the burning toast when making breakfast analogy, this is less common (in my experience, as I've been offered white van speakers but never make toast), involves a third party (an organized ring of con men), and is usually more expensive (unless said toast incident leads to a house fire, I suppose). - Foetusized (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Good sources, and seems notable. / edg ☺ ☭ 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep As someone who watches and helps maintain this article, I do agree that it needs some work. But I don't agree that it should be deleted, as per the reasons that have already been given. Bloodshedder (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

KEEEEEP - It is right on, and is a very accurate article. It is definitely notable, especially in terms of how prevalent the scam has become. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.81.196.32 (talk) 01:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep, needs much' better sourcing though. --Dhartung | Talk 09:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It's got one newspaper-quality source that talks directly about this issue, and numerous links from a registered anti-scam 501(c) non-profit organisation - so it's certainly a notable phenomenon. Could perhaps use some more work. Having practical value is no grounds for delete! The Zig (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, adequately sourced article, AfD Isn't Cleanup®, and it even passes the "I've heard of this" test (though, admittedly, that's because I used to be an active kuro5hin reader =). Besides, any article with a sentence like "In Pennsylvania, the act of selling white van speakers is punishable by up to five years in prison and up to a fine of $10,000" is an instant keep. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 15:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Wwwwolf. There's plenty for a good article in here.--NapoliRoma (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Lots of good information and a very prevalent practice that is helpful to know about.edg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.63.79.124 (talk) 21:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Keep the article, it's informative and well referenced. DEVS EX MACINA pray 00:55, 20 January 2008 (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.