Talk:Norvergence

Prod
It has been proposed that this article be deleted for lack of notability.

The entire top portion of this article has major neutrality issues. The use of caps to emphasize points is easy proof and appears to be biased and opinionated. This article needs to be written from an objective point of view. I don't think notability is an issue with this company. It was major news in 2004 when they went bankrupt, especially on the East coast. It made major headlines in New Jersey. A little research will prove it. NorVergence customers were specifically told that if they should go out of business, they would continue to receive service through their local phone company for the same price. This was in their training manual and told to countless customers. This was not the case, and constitutes fraudulent business practices. I know because I was a Screening Manager. Anonymous user. 2:27 pm 2/15/08

I agree that the current revision is far from neutral. The operation was indeed a fraud and a scam, thousands of customers lost money and were left without phone service, in addition to facing lawsuits for the lease of useless, vastly overpriced equipment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.71.231.157 (talk) 03:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment was based upon a vandalized version of the article. The vandalism has been removed, I an am removing the neutrality tag from the article. Jteich (talk) 02:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that Norvergence does not suffer from a lack of notability as it affected 10,000 small businesses in the US in addition to the employees. Norvergence is also significant because of its affect on law. Already the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that the contractual "floating jurisdiction clause" in these leases does not give Ohio leasers (who bought these leases from Norvergence) the right to bring suit in Ohio. On the other hand, the Georgia Court of Appeals has recently upheld and enforced the same contractual provisions related to jurisdiction. There are other ongoing cases going on around the US and there are still likely to be more which can possibly lead to this being even more notable. Mattisyahu 20:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Norvergence is certainly a pyramid scheme, and a lease-financing scam, with Norvergence scamming both its customers, and the leasing companies to which the many capital leases signed by unwitting customers were sold. Norvergence had no ongoing revenue stream which was even remotely adequate to service the basic costs of maintaining service to existing customers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.64.117 (talk) 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

This can be classified as financial scam category. More stuff needed in terms of how did the scam happen and where was the money spent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.90.16.49 (talk) 11:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Regarding legal proceedings in Illinois on lease-financing assignment collection and contracts' venue selection clause, see http://www.state.il.us/court/Opinions/AppellateCourt/2007/1stDistrict/December/1051310.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.250.141.68 (talk) 16:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't suggest that the article be deleted, as discussion around the details of the Norvergence scam is certainly valuable. It's unfortunate, however, that this article shows a clear slant toward the officers and others responsible. I don't recall that any of the key players' names are mentioned in the article (Thomas Salzano, Peter Salzano, Arthur Scuttaro, Alex Wolf, Robert Fine, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinsprnt (talk • contribs) 03:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just talked to a primary source on this. A lot checks out with what he said. Motocop (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Verifiability, Neutral Point-of-View
There has been a lot of back and forth on this article. Most of it has been side-vs-side, arguing. Wikipedia has policies making all of this moot.

Effective immediately, any additions to or removals from this article and its talk page will follow policy. Of particular concern are our policies on maintaining a neutral point-of-view and verifiability. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * After ensuring that EVERYTHING in the article was attributed to independent reliable sources, I notice someone came back to insist that nothing was proven. This is verifiably not true. Additionally, for reasons unknown, the same editor removed the names "Thomas and Peter Salzano" (the guys who started this scheme) from one of the source's titles. Please explain. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * After ensuring that EVERYTHING in the article was attributed to independent reliable sources, I notice someone came back to insist that nothing was proven. This is verifiably not true. Additionally, for reasons unknown, the same editor removed the names "Thomas and Peter Salzano" (the guys who started this scheme) from one of the source's titles. Please explain. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 01:33, 30 April 2016 (UTC)