Talk:MMM-2011

= MMM-2011 = I raise this here because I'm sure it needs attention, though I can't exactly figure out why. We have a recently-created article on MMM-2011, a Russia-based self-described 'Ponzi scheme'. Now, if Wikipedia was being used to promote such a scheme, the action to take would be fairly clear - but our article seems to be simultaneously promoting the scheme, and telling our readers that it is self-evidently a con. I think this needs looking into, but my brain is incapable of handling post-modernist fraudsters... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, Andy. I imagine that you are not questioning its notability, so deletion for that is not in the cards. The lede in the article is certainly incorrect format -- it should be no longer than 4 paragraphs (at most), and should summarize the article.  Might the way to address it not be to work on the lede to reflect clearly and up front that is is a Ponzi scheme (and what that means)?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, you're right - except that our Ponzi scheme article already lacks sources which adequately describe the subject. There are plenty of good academic sources on particular examples of the phenomenon (I'd recommend Katherine Verdery on the Caritas nonsense in 1990s Romania as a nice little ethnographic exposé of one), but there is precious little real in-depth analysis of the more general principles. And come to that, even if there were, it would be WP:OR to apply such analysis to this particular article. Hence my doubts as to the correct way to deal with this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've tried to at least ameliorate somewhat the risks you've helpfully identified. I moved most of what was the lede down, keeping the first paragraph, and added a new second paragraph to the (now 2-paragraph) lede that per a major Australian RS identifies what an RS is, and gives some of the flavor of scheme creator's background.  It could probably use some work still, and the body of the article definitely is in dire need of work -- I've barely touched it, other than to copyedit.  But at least now a reader will see a lede that won't be promotional, and which will reflect what a Ponzi scheme is.  Good of Andy to flag this.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Returning to an earlier point: I realise that notability is the most frequent basis for deletion, but does it have to be the only basis? I'm not sure whether it might be the best solution for this specific article but in general I'd hope that we can make decisions on the margin, and ask "Will there be a net improvement for the encyclopædia if we deleted this article?". Something which might, occasionally, apply to ponzi schemes. bobrayner (talk) 09:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know the answer to your question, off-hand. But in this instance, at least, I would think that it would be a net-positive to have the article.  It allows us to serve the purpose of conveying (if properly edited) accurate information, as to an issue that I expect will be of significant interest (to potential investors, among other wp readers), and as to which non-accurate information may abound.  Not that we are snopes.com.  But if properly written, I see us communicating accurate information in a murky area as a net benefit.  As with all wp article, though, that presumes that we keep it accurate.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Those are good points. In this case, I think we have sufficient sources to present it neutrally/accurately. bobrayner (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Unacknowledged translation?
Comparing this article with the one on the same subject on the Russian-language Wikipedia, I think that this may have been a direct translation - if it is, shouldn't there be a record of this somewhere, as required by the licensing attribution requirements? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can confirm that looks like direct translation of . I see no record in history, but based on this observation, I'll put template here. `a5b (talk) 00:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Nominating for deletion
I'm nominating this for deletion. It's probably the worst article I've ever seen on Wikipedia. It's clearly a shill and out to sell whatever product this is supposed to be, nevermind the generally awful translation and that it's sprinkled with random emotes. Wikipedia really doesn't need this. --93.200.25.68 (talk) 01:23, 30 August 2012 (UTC)