Talk:Get-rich-quick schemes

Note to author regarding POV
The tone of this stub seems negative, mainly toward the end. Stating that something is fraud is not acceptable per WP:NPOV. Please edit it accordingly. PJM 20:42, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Is selling an item such as a book, CD, tape, video, DVD, or generating money from parking tickets and other schemes with the promise of helping people make money not fraud? In other words, is making false promises and being a confidence guy not fraudulent when you know that no one can do anything since each victim is only paying between $10 to $200?


 * Do you personally know any close friends or relative who has accomplished a diddly-squat by following through some drivel, ha? Let's get serious.

-anon


 * Yes, let's get serious about following Wikipedia's article writing policies. What you say is generally true, but an encyclopedic article must offer both sides of the story - as silly as that might seem. Thanks. PJM 21:20, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do we not leave this article and wait until someone comes by and offers the other side of the story. Speedy deletion will not provide a chance for Mathew Lesko and Robert G. Allen, and others to respond. Or you could also specify a correction. Did I not explain what constitutes a fraud? Also, you can change the wordings...

This type of article is nothing new. I first saw the word get-rich-quick-scheme in a book by Peter Norton who used the term derisively in one his computer textbooks. In addition, Marshall Brain has written that "if something is too good to be true, then it is" in his The Teenager's Guide to the Real World.

--anon

Delete. The article is original research, which is a no-no. Not to mention atrociously written. Also, the very title "get rich quick scheme" is inherently biased from the getgo and could never be made into a workable list, let alone an article. wikipediatrix 22:01, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, it definitely scrapes WP:NOR and the writing is poor. PJM 22:13, 22 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave the source for the word get-rich-quick. Any how-to guide for adults has this.  What is the meaning of original research?  I have been spending two hours to state only the facts.
 * 1) Have I not explained the meaning of fraud?
 * 2) You have not challenged any specific facts yet? You have only vaguely criticized its "negativity."
 * 3) You have not shown willingness to allow others to respond by presenting their facts?
 * 4) Can you spell out what is wrong with truth? Isaac Newton said, "Plato is my friend — Aristotle is my friend — but my greatest friend is truth. "
 * 5) As an encylopedist, can you not improve my writing?

--John on 22 November 2005

I'm not sure this is a WP:CSD. Get Rich Quick Schemes do exist and it might even make an interesting article. It would need a lot more work and research, though, and unless someone is likely to do it, it is certainly an WP:AFD candidate. Superclear 22:57, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Because it expresses via opinion that specific persons and organizations are fraudulent it's an attack article, and that makes it speediable. PJM 01:46, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, I agree. Superclear 01:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)