Talk:Cash4Gold/Archives/2012

controversy/complaints section
It'd be nice to include a controversy section with information such as the following: They aren't notable (enough) sources, I don't think. tedder (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://consumerist.com/5142831/cash4gold-offers-blogger-3000-to-remove-negative-post
 * http://consumerist.com/5144296/10-confessions-of-a-cash4gold-employee
 * http://www.cockeyed.com/citizen/goldkit/reputation.shtml
 * Sources need to be reliable, not notable. They're unreliable because they're firsthand accounts and blogs.  If a news story picks up on these, then we'll have something. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 09:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the difference. Yes, the issue is WP:RS. This latimes article may help get the complaints section started. tedder (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another RS: msnbc article. I'll try to include these soon. tedder (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * So if your mother told you about the time she got cheated by some business and lost a lot of money, it wouldn't be reliable because it wasn't in the news? I think controversies which have been brought up concerning Cash4Gold should be mentioned in detail regardless of whether it was mentioned in a newspaper/news channel or not. MystX (talk) 12:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's a pretty good example of why it wouldn't be considered worthy of inclusion. Anecdotal stories are not reliable sources (for Wikipedia purposes). For example if in the article on lemonade I try to add a controversy section with information that my mum developed cancer and her doctor says it was directly linked to drinking lemonade, how would anyone else be able to verify that I was telling the truth? So we require reliable sources to cover something firstly for verifiability reasons (so that people don't have to say "Wikipedia says X" - they can look up the source and see for themselves), and secondly because reliable sources by their nature have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
 * If I was to tell BBC News for example that my mum developed cancer that was directly linked to her drinking of lemonade, they wouldn't just print it taking me at my word. They'd look into the story, check the facts and so on before putting it up. Finally when their story is published, I could theoretically add such information to the lemonade article, probably under a "health concerns" or similar section. :)
 * But yes, there is certainly enough reliable sources now I would say for some kind of controversy section, hence why we have one. :) Dreaded Walrus t c 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * http://consumerist.com/5349663/the-article-cash4gold-doesnt-want-you-to-read —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.46.164.254 (talk) 16:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I've just changed the term '...money back.' to '...gold back.' in the UK Controversy section, they would want to get their gold returned to them not the cash. Insomnica (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

notability/proposed deletion
Proposed deletion by User:Ronark: "Web site is non-notable. There is no article for the site's parent company. Two of the references only mention the site as secondary to their main topics. Also, a couple of television advertisements that are not seen by 90% of the world do not make something 'notable'. The article fails to establish notability and in fact does not adequately describe the site's business (the sentence is not complete)."

I know the lede (and the whole article) need a LOT more work, but it is a first pass. In terms of notability, here are some additional sources that I (or others) can integrate. However, I'm posting them here to address the notability concern.
 * http://www.bizjournals.com/southflorida/stories/2008/04/21/story8.html
 * http://www.usatoday.com/life/lifestyle/2008-05-11-gold-parties_N.htm
 * http://www.forbes.com/feeds/prnewswire/2008/11/20/prnewswire200811201007PR_NEWS_USPR_____LA47630.html (press release, not the best, but some interesting info)
 * http://www.entrepreneur.com/Hot500/Details/57.html (good financials, and is a sort of business 'award' to be on the list)
 * http://www.inc.com/inc5000/2007/company-profile.html?id=200702710 (another award of sorts)
 * http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1731875,00.html
 * http://southflorida.blockshopper.com/news/story/202223/ (only interesting for the names listed, not adding to notability)
 * http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/02/beneath-cash4go.html
 * http://redtape.msnbc.com/2009/02/blogger-cash4go.html

I understand the Superbowl isn't the biggest thing worldwide, and I'm trying to avoid the single-event notability issues inherent in that. However, it was worth mentioning, I think, considering the followup coverage to their ad, especially since they included two well-known celebrities in the ad. tedder (talk) 23:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

misinterpretation of article
In the article, it says that "Cash4Gold set up a safety net and web-based database that would ensure the items received are accessible by law enforcement to prevent thieves from selling stolen jewelry".

But the cited article says "Talking with Jeff Aronson, the president of Cash4Gold, he said his company actually does have a "safety net" in place to help catch thieves trying to sell stolen gold." IE, owner of company touted "safety net"

I'm deleting the sentence. Infringement153 (talk) 07:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm also deleting the sentence, "Cash4Gold flags any individual who submits large quantities or unusual pieces of jewelry." It has no citations, and is subjective anyways. Infringement153 (talk)