Talk:Scentura/Archive 1

From the article page
I removed all of this unsourced information to the talk page, if the creator needs a source, I can find one for her/him. Many of the articles listed can be used as a source. Calendar 18:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

==Example of a Scentura Employment Ad==

This is the driving core of Scentura's business, finding LOTS of people who can be "trained" to sell fake perfume in parking lots. Power in numbers. A very broad, vague, and universally appealling message is used to attract as many people as possible. When they call in for more information they are greeted with "a few simple questions to determine if the position is right for you". These questions include "are you available for work full-time?" and "do you have reliable transportation?", little else. Candidates are then given a time for an interview.


 * this ad was found under the "Admin/Office" jobs section of craigslist.org:

OFFICE HELP NEEDED ASAP! NO EXP NEC! (san jose north)

Reply to: see below

Date: 2007-09-17, 10:49AM PDT

Expanding company is looking for

18 to 25 guys/gals needed for help in a fun fast paced office.

No phone sales.

No experience necessary.

We are willing to train.

Competitive salaries!

Call today, start tommorow.

Please Call: 408-263-****.


 * Compensation: Depends on Experience.
 * Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
 * Phone calls about this job are ok.
 * Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.

PostingID: 424798026

Borderline vandalism
A single purpose account continues to delete the 20 references in this article. The articles are all legit, and have simply been posted on Ripoffreport by another user. I am sure if I removed the link to ripoffreport, this user would still continue to delete.

The Long case is obviously legit also, in which Scentura was found to be a pyramid scheme.

This single purpose account has not attempted to work with other editors, instead he pushes his own version, deleting 20 referenced sources.

What links are broken? The single purpose account continues to say there are only 5 links broken, but deletes all 20.

This single purpose account continues to remove all sources, adding a pro-Scentura, unsourced skew on this pyramid scheme.

Arguments of single purpose account:


 * References didn't exist. Only 4 different links were working.


 * Proof that Ripoffreport.com is a fraud. Quit putting unverfied references.


 * Ripoffreport.com is a fraud. The case vs. Dan Long is also fabricated Most links are broken and pointing to the same site.


 * You have 5 broken links, 13 "references" that point to the same article in ripoffreport.com. 2 vague references from news reports about independent contractors.

These arguments cannot be all true. There are 20 references--in one edit, the single purpose account says there are 4 links of 20 working, and later says there are 5 of 20 working. Which is it? Why does this single purpose account delete all 20 references, instead of only the links that are broken?

The single purpose account also claims that the Dan Long case is fabicricated--which is a complete and total lie.

Calendar 18:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I just checked every link and they all work for me (some were slow loading, however). Moreover, all seemed relevant as sources for the points asserted. Moreover, googling "+Scentura +pyramid" yields a large number of confirmatory additional sources. CIreland 18:58, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

ripoffreport.com
FWIW, although this looks like a useful website for people trying to avoid being scammed, I don't think it qualifies as a WP:reliable source. However, there are plenty of other reliable sources referenced in the article that will give the reader a good picture of what Scentura is all about, particularly the court decision that it is a pyramid scheme. Why not just remove the ripoffreport.com links, and leave the others? Dlabtot 19:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the suggestion. The ripoffreport site simply hosts the full articles, from newspapers, television stations, etc. I can move the articles somewhere else, if this user agrees to stop deleting the referenced sources. Calendar 19:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * well, actually, the links I followed (sorry, I don't remember which ones) were not full articles from newspapers, television stations, etc., but rather, personal testimonials from folks who had been victims of the scam. As far as preconditioning your actions on an abusive editor's agreement to stop being abusive... I'm not sure that's a good plan. Dlabtot 20:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the one and only link to ripoffreport.com : http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff36647.htm it has copies of the articles.

Here are all of the full articles, from reputable news organizations across the United States which can be found on this ripoffreport page:

So these articles can be posted somewhere else if linking them to ripoffreport.com is the problem. Calendar 22:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I get it now. Check out WP:CITE, 'Say where you got it',  that should help you clean it up. Dlabtot 21:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Why the weasel words?
The lead states: "there are people who are critical of Scentura's business practices." -- there's no reason to say that. The reliably sourced statement: "In a court battle with a former distributor, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that this company was a "pyramid sales scheme..." not only describes the business practice that is being criticized - being a "pyramid sales scheme" - but also says exactly who is doing the criticising - the Illinois Appellate Court. Further, the statement implies - without any reference to a reliable source - that while some are critical, others are giving praise.  If this POV can be cited to a reliable source, than it should explicitly appear in the article rather than be implied with the weasel words "there are people".  And finally, the article isn't really long enough or detailed enough to separate into sections. Dlabtot 19:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the "there are people" second sentence, another excellent point. While the sentence may work better in the criticism section, standing alone it is rather awkward and a weasel sentence.
 * I actually prefer the sections added yesterday by another user, but that is everybody's call. Calendar 12:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest edits everything needs a source and a cite
The anon 66.167.79.158 had some good edits, let me explain:


 * "Door to Door is knocking on someone's house. Scentura doesn't condone that practice."

Scentura goes door to door to businesses. The do not condone going door to door to houses.

I am quoting Stieffel, Kristen (September 2001). "Perfume Bandits. (Fake Perfume Offered In Parking Lots)". Orlando Business Journal 18 (16): 23.

Unless I am mistaken, the majority of the sales of scentura is from:
 * FFAR. (Friends, Family and Relatives) who new recruits are supposed to 'practice' selling on.
 * sell perfume door to door to businesses and
 * in parking lots.

So the "(i.e. business to business, corporate discount plans, person to person)" statment is vague and not covering the majority of the sales.

Also: ANY CHANGES PLEASE CITE WITH A REFERENCE.

RE: From: "Scentura is described by the Better Business Bureau as a "multilevel selling company." to "Scentura is described by the Better Business Bureau as a "multilevel marketing company." this is a direct quote, please do not change direct quotes for references, thank you.

You deleted a direct quote, from a cited reference:


 * The firm manufacturers inexpensive imitations of designer fragrances. Salespeople are sent out, often in pairs, to hawk the product door-to-door or, yes, in parking lots.

Please do not do this.

RE: "WMI was a door-to-door retail business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume." to "WMI was a wholesale business which sold products such as luggage, toys and perfume" again, this is a paraphrased quote from a cited reference. Please do not change it unless you have another referenced source.

RE: "Also World Perfume, which no longer exists, is a completely separate company from Scentura", "World Perfume is no longer in business because of many controversial business practices. Many people have confused World Perfume with Scentura and have viewed it as one and the same."

Yes. It is a seperate company, which the article acknowledges. That is wonderful if WP is out of business. The business practices of World perfume were taken from Scentura. The companies were almost identical. There is no need to argue this if indeed World Perfume is closed, and there are no references to back up these statements.

RE: "Daniel Long left with Johnny Whitworth and refused to return Scentura's merchandise."

Please cite a reference. Johnny Whitworth is not mentioned in the case. You can quote the case if you like.

RE: In 2001, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled that the contract between Scentura and Long was a "pyramid sales scheme", violated the county law and was unenforceable.

The Illinois Appellate Court is not a county court, it is a appeals court of the state of Illinois. Therefore the rulings of the Illinois Appellate Court are binding upon the entire state of Illinois. In fact, one other case later cites this case. It is good case law.

RE: "Training is from four to eight weeks." to "Training is from six to eight weeks."

I think you are correct. Maybe four to eight weeks was the training period several decades ago. I will restore this edit, delete the reference, and add a fact tag. Please provide a source for this statment.

PLEASE CITE YOUR ADDITIONS. For example, I would love to talk about the FFAR program for new trainees, and the training manuals, and some of the other practices of Scentura, but no news source mentions these items, so it has stayed out of the article. If it isn't sourced, it shouldn't be in the article.

Thanks. Calendar 03:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish I could use myself as a source. My group was told we would be managing our own office in 6 weeks. But that was back in 1995 or 96. I was only there a day or two.--Susan118 (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Information on new office moved to talk page
I removed the anons entry from the main page to the talk page:

Scentura currently has a office in Brooklyn, New York. This branch is located in an unmarked building adjacent to the trains A,C on Broadway Junction street. The company calls itself Linshe Management, G-Unit, and DSM as opposed to Scentura Creations. It relies heavily upon advertising in the New York Post and New York Daily News. The ad often looks like:

Wanted for New Off Loc 30 ppl Cust Serv, Sales, Management NO Exp Nec Call Miss Johnson/Miss Torres/Miss Robinson 718-240-9063

This information is useful, but it is better listed on the talk page. The main page is supposed to look like an encyclopedia entry, with general information on the company, not specific offices listed by the public. Calendar 22:42, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Ultimate Fragrance into this page?
I proposed merging Ultimate Fragrance into this page for the following reasons:


 * --The article begins with the line:"Ultimate Fragrance, also known as Scentura Creations, World Perfume, or Ultimate Wholesale is a perfume company based in the city of Saint Louis, Missouri, within the Saint Louis metropolitan area". Right there that line states they are all names for the same company. (Although I believe elsewhere in this talk page someone mentioned World Perfume is not associated with Scentura at all, so that may be an error on Ultimate's page).
 * --The information on Ultimate's page, while not as complete, is nearly identical to what is on Scentura's page. It does list a different founding date and location, but everything else is the same.
 * --If the company operates under several different names, Scentura Creations seems to be the main one. I think it would be a good idea to put all the alternate names on the main Scentura page, and just note any information that may differ.--Susan118 (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice job, I merged the page. Calendar (talk) 02:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Newspaper sources with no dates, no article title, no reporter's name
There are multiple sources cited in this article, purportedly from newspapers, where only the name (sometimes the wrong name) of the newspaper is given, then an "excerpt" from the article. No date. No article title. No reporter's name. Is this acceptable sourcing to help defame a subject on Wikipedia? -- CRedit 1234 (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why are almost all of the links broken? How about some real links?
I'm sorry to bother everyone but I'm trying to do research for a course in Stanford about direct sales: the pros and cons. My paper has to do about the pros and cons of direct sales and the history of it. I can't use any of these links and references because well they're almost all dead ends and some of the links are just straight false. More than half the reference don't even have links. More than half of those with links say they point to a news company/station but they go to a blank page on ripoffreport.com. Only 8 links that actually work out of 38, rubs me the wrong way. This article seems very biased and I usually use this encyclopedia as a starting point. I would hope that I could continue to use that.

Here's my review of the links:
 * 1) 1) Takes me to a portal for my local library leads me to half written article by the orlando business journal through a library system which leads me to "article not found" I searched online for the Orlando Business Journal and searched for Scentura Creations.  All I found was a small blurb about the company history.  Nothing negative.
 * 2) 2) broken link to ripoffreport.com and a blank page. Nothing close to the false Atlanta Business Chronicle. Searched that, got nothing. Same blurb as link #1
 * 3) 3) good link. Tough read.
 * 4) 4) no link
 * 5) 5) is a link to another wikipedia page. Nothing to do with what the reference claims.  No articles on Scentura or it's distributors.
 * 6) 6) Link is good. But it is about EOE Management not Scentura Creations. This should be used for a page on EOE Management.
 * 7) 7-13,15,17-19,21-23) no link again. Searched for that paper, found it online, no articles found again.
 * 8) 14) Same as #6? Why do you need to reference the same article twice?  Again, it's for EOE Management not Scentura Creations.
 * 9) 16) Link is broken. Error 500. Searched main site for articles.  Again nothing.
 * 10) 20) Link is finally good again! But unfortunately it's about EMO Management now. Again not Scentura Creations.  Though I like how they at least mentioned that Scentura was the supplier and they cannot control independent business owners.  That makes total sense to me.
 * 11) 24) Snopes.com? Seriously?  That's laughable.  Even the title says, "rumor has it".  Even the status says: FALSE.  I gave it a read anyway.  The references on the bottom do not have any sources relating to Scentura Creations.  Only sources they have relates to the ether perfume hoax.
 * 12) 25-26,28-32,34,36-37) broken link to ripoffreport.com. Ends with a blank page.  Can't use that site anyway.
 * 13) 27) Good link. But again for a distributor called International Design.  Not Scentura Creations.  They merely mention Scentura as the manufacturer of the fragrances.
 * 14) 33) Same as link #1
 * 15) 35) Good link. About Rhino Enterprises, very vague article as well.  Many subjective points.  Who are these "job-seekers"?  The other articles used names.  But again, not Scentura Creations.
 * 16) 38) Good link but again Pittsburgh Wholesale, not Scentura Creations.

So after I did all this, I called Scentura Creations myself. I spoke with Karey. I asked how many distributors does Scentura Creations supply? She said over 250 offices worldwide. So out of 250 offices there has been 4 REAL news articles written about their independent distributors that are supplied here. One of those articles was so vague and subjective I couldn't believe it's even used here. So that means that 246 offices could easily running their operations legitimately. To use the words "Nationwide media coverage on the company has tended to be overwhelmingly negative" is a huge exaggeration given the references provided.

Now if this was a general page for Scentura Distributors, not the company itself, then I could see using those sources because there's always some bad apples in every bunch. There should be a positive side and negative side to it. Just like any other page on here.

Is there real true research on this company? I asked my professor about this and he said that he's heard of Scentura Creations and believes that they have a legitimate business model. He's never been involved with direct sales but he believes that any good business person should realize the pros and cons of every business model available. He also expressed that I should use this company since they are the only direct sales company that does not require a customer to buy into it but rather work into it. It makes it a very interesting concept.

He also told us to avoid consumer forums where the website DOES NOT act as a mediator between the consumer and business in question. When I brought him my rough draft he said I couldn't use any of the references from ripoffreport.com, complaintsboard.com, or any other forum because most of the complaints on these site are fabricated and/or extremely one-sided and an embellishment of the truth. He also stated that opinions are not facts. Also, there is no way for a legitimate company can resolve the complaints.

I read the news articles but all of them are about independent distributors that are customers of Scentura Creations, not the company itself. Therefore I can't use them. The only factual link that I can use is the court decision from lowest tier court system in Illinois. From that judgment, I can conclude that State of Illinois' Consumer Fraud Act would consider Scentura Creations a pyramid scheme. Again, I brought this up to my professor and he said, "Sorry, you better find something better than Appellate court decision to be convincing in the real world." That stung because it took me forever to read through it.

After going through it again, it doesn't mean that Scentura breaches the Federal Consumer Fraud Act nor any other states version. To be totally honest, it seems the judge really stretched out to make this ruling. Maybe I'm wrong here but if this company was really doing bad things to people wouldn't it have been moved to the Federal Court system?

So if you have more links about Scentura and their wrong doing that would be amazing. I really hope wikipedia doesn't turn into the likes of Snope.com If used wikipedia before for many things and I have never come across an article this fabricated. This for my MBA and I would like to use actual facts for my research. This will be published one day and I hope to be able to say something positive about Wikipedia.

Thanks for the time all. I know this was long.

TJArandon1223 (talk) 19:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)TJ

No Responses?
How come no one has done anything about this?

In the essence of keeping up with the standard that Wikipedia has upheld with almost any other page about anything, I can just edit this myself and remove any lines that point to links that are broken or having little/nothing to do with Scentura.

If anyone disagrees let me know so we can actually move forward here. If anyone has links that truly work and that go along with the statements on this page that I have no problem keeping them up. But no one seems to even care. I'll check back in a few days. Let me know.

TJArandon1223 (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2010 (UTC)TJ

Amazed by no responses.
How pathetic. I wrote out a complete explanation of these broken links and still no one does anything. So I take it upon myself to edit out anything with false links. I figured since no one really cared, it was no big deal. But instead, someone cowardly reverts the article right back to it's false and irresponsible state.

To the person who undid my edited article using only the working links that refer directly to Scentura, I have to call you a coward. You can't even have the decency to discuss it. I read the history on this page. Others have tried to edit the incredibly biased statements in this article posing as facts. Unreal.

Well, I guess we get what we pay for. Free encyclopedia with false and biased information. Way to help ruin Wikipedia's reputation online. You should see the news articles popping up over and over about how wikipedia is more or less a fountain of misinformation. You sir, are one of the reasons.

-TJ —Preceding unsigned comment added by TJArandon1223 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

removing legitamate newspaper articles
This article has gone from an extremly well source article to an advertisement for scentura with zero references. I reverted and posted a complaint here: Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

Just because the article links are broken does not mean the sources are in anyone incorrect. Per Link rot:
 * "Do not delete factual information solely because the URL to the source does not work any longer. WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published online."

I could probably post ALL 38 here if that is what it takes. I already posted a dozen of these articles above: Talk:Scentura Calendar2 (talk) 21:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Per findings of olyeller21, "Nick Brunson is the web-admin for Scentura. Adding COI tag until the content can be assessed and cleaned up if warranted" Calendar2 (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Calendar2 here that the material from the newspapers ought to be included for the most part. I'm willing to discuss each sentence individually, but I don't think it's OK for Nick Brunson to remove vast swaths of well cited material with argumentative and uninformative edit summaries.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 16:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is a youtube video I found which can't be added to the main page as I don't know its source. Calendar2 (talk) 19:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

References recently removed from the article



 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:04, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed this: Nationwide media coverage on the company has tended to be overwhelmingly negative. Calendar2 (talk) 18:21, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Facts about Scentura Creations
Fact No. 1 - Scentura Creations distributes perfume to Independent Business owners on an international level (http://www.scenturacreations.com/about-overview-new.html). They do not sell perfume door-to-door.

Fact No. 2 - Scentura does not have salespeople. They have a receptionist, a customer service manager, a warehouse manager, a production coordinator, and a general manager. Therefore any reference to "Scentura Salespeople" on this page should be removed, and there are a lot of them.

Fact No. 3 - Due to the fact that Scentura's customers are Independent Distributors, they do not, and legally CANNOT, dictate the business practices of the businesses that resell their products. Therefore several entries, such as:

"Sometimes, new salespeople are promised large salaries and are later disappointed to discover that the actual position has no salary and is a 100% commission job."

"The only income is from selling knock off perfume door-to-door or in parking lots."

"Employees are also sometimes encouraged by independent distributors to lie about the products they are selling."

"Scentura salespeople have been in trouble with police for soliciting without a permit."

...should be deleted because none of these instances describe SCENTURA'S business practices, or people that are employed by, or are dictated by Scentura Creations. These entries describe business practices of Independent Distributors, and therefore should be noted on the Wikipedia page for the Independent Distributor in question.

Fact No. 3 - W.M.I. was not a door-to-door sales business. W.M.I. had the same business model as Scentura Creations - distributing to Independent Resellers. W.M.I. never employed any salespeople.

Other items:

1. The entry regarding...

"There is an urban legend that similar tactics were being used by thieves who, instead of using perfume, would have the victim inhale a substance (reportedly ether) which would render her unconscious, whereupon she would be robbed."

should be removed because it is irrelevant. It even says in the article that there have been no credible reports. And besides, if someone gets robbed at knife point, should we blame Pampered Chef?

2. Everyone keeps talking about "reliable sources." Quite frankly, just about everyone of these sources is flawed because they are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor. For example, anytime you see something that says "Scentura now has an office in (insert city)," the article is inaccurate by default because Scentura has only one location, their office and warehouse in Chamblee, GA.

3. If I go to a restaurant and receive poor service from the waiter, should I blame the restaurant's food supplier? No, I would take my issue up with the business owner. It is irresponsible to blame Scentura for something they have no control over, namely the business tactics of the customers that purchase their product.

4. It is also irresponsible to say that "Nationwide media coverage on the company has tended to be overwhelmingly negative." because, once again, these sources are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor, and therefore CANNOT be considered legitimate sources. NickBrunson (talk) 04:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

5. The YouTube video posted in this discussion by alf.laylah.wa.laylah is, once again, irrelevant because it features an Independent Business that resells Scentura's product-line, but does not feature Scentura. In fact, at 0:18 of the video, the sign on the business says "A.M.G."
 * if there are no indepedent sources, it does not belong in the article. Calendar2 (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * @NickBrunson: You're confused. I didn't post any youtube videos anywhere.  If you would calm down and try to understand how wikipedia works, you'd have a much better chance of having some influence on this discussion and on the shape of the article.  If you keep putting walls of text up here which don't support your arguments and which show ignorance of and indifference to wikipedia's policies, you're almost certainly going to end up being ignored by everyone.  Why don't you take a few minutes to read WP:RS and WP:V so you can see what people are talking about when they use the words "reliable sources".  Your word on what this company is like is not a reliable source.  Most of the company's internally generated documents are not reliable sources except for very specific and very narrowly limited kinds of facts.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 19:55, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Mr. Brunson is probably talking about the video I posted above, on this talk page, while I was searching. I clearly stated it probably does not belong in the article.


 * The state of Illinois ruled that Scentura was a "pyramid sales scheme":
 * (Scentura) is a manufacturer and distributor of rendition perfume products to independent wholesaler consignees. On November 29, 1995, defendant entered into a consignment contract with (Scentura). Pursuant to the contract, (Scentura) was to provide defendant with perfume products. Defendant would sell the products to an end user for the consignment price. Payment of the consignment price for the perfume products was due when defendant sold the products to an end user. The agreement was for a term of 30 days and was automatically renewed unless one party gave written notice of termination. If defendant terminated the agreement, he was to hold all merchandise in his possession for a period of 30 days "until (Scentura) shall have an opportunity to remove such merchandise."
 * In our view, the consignment contract between (Scentura) and defendant is properly characterized as a chain referral sales technique or pyramid sales scheme, which falls within the protection of section 2A of the Act. See People ex rel. Hartigan v. Unimax, Inc., 168 Ill. App. 3d 718 (1988) (holding that a marketing scheme whereby the marketer obtained commissions dependent upon bringing others into the system fell within the definition of a prohibited "pyramid sales scheme" under the Consumer Fraud Act). The testimony at the arbitration hearing, provided in support of (Scentura)'s motion for summary judgment, unequivocally establishes that defendant was compensated by (Scentura) for bringing other consignees into the Scentura system and that his compensation was contingent upon (Scentura)'s delivery of perfume to the other consignees. The contractual arrangement, which effectually rendered defendant a guarantor for the perfume delivered to the other consignees that defendant referred, places defendant at the top of the pyramid or head of the chain. The contractual relationship between (Scentura) and defendant is an unlawful practice and is prohibited by section 2A of the Act.
 * The numerous media accounts support the Appelate Court of Illinois statment.
 * Calendar2 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Poor Sources
Is it logical to make statements about a company using references that don't even name that company? This article uses references that identify the actions and business practices of people, salespersons, distributors, etc. over which Scentura has no legal dictation. If I visit a car dealership and receive poor customer service on from the sales staff, do I blame the manufacturer of the car? Any statement made on this page based on a reference that doesn't even name Scentura should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.201.92 (talk) 04:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Which references are you unhappy about? The one you removed from the Orlando Business Journal certainly does mention Scentura.  Which of the ones you removed doesn't, and what was sourced to it?  Can we just talk about one sentence or one source at a time?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I suppose that makes sense. Here are the items that stand out for me:

1) Initial Scentura description, second and third sentences: when I click on the reference labeled [1], I'm taken to an AccessMyLibrary.com page that talks briefly about "people approaching women in parking lots and asking them to sniff perfume." It doesn't mention Scentura, it doesn't say anything about Scentura's product-line, and it doesn't mention multi-level marketing. It does look like an incomplete article though, maybe I'm not seeing the button that says "read more." And the third sentence doesn't seem accurate at all. It's closer to describing tactics of businesses that resell Scentura's product, but it doesn't describe Scentura itself. Everything I've read says that Scentura is the manufacturer and supplier, but doesn't deal directly with the end customer. That third sentence should be removed altogether, and replaced with something that clearly describes their role as a supplier.


 * There's a quote from the article in the note. I can't see the full article either.  Do you have some reason to doubt that the sentence is in the article?&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk)

2) History section, last sentence regarding Johnny Whitworth: This sentence implies that Whitworth was employed by Larry Hahn. Seems pretty clear to me that the independent distributors are not employees. That sentence should be re-worded.


 * I have no opinion on this. As far as I'm concerned, the whole sentence can be removed.  I don't see how it implies that anyone was employed by anyone, though.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

3) Anything that references the Atlanta Business Chronicle link (reference #3) should be removed because it's clearly someone's commentary, not an actual article. It starts off with "Larry Hahn, founder of Scentura, was a genius. The beauty of the world perfume and Scentura pyramid is this..." Doesn't seem credible by any stretch. There are at least two sentences that reference this source.


 * This article I actually have access to. Regardless of what the first sentence is, and regardless of whether it seems credible, it's a reliable source and it says what's cited to it.  I think that this material is adequately supported.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

4) In the Business Model section, "Independent distributors recruit salespeople...": This is a relatively specific statement to make about ALL distributors who sell Scentura's product-line, not to mention the fact that this doesn't describe Scentura's business practices, but rather those of independent distributors.


 * I'll get back to this one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

5) Also in the Business Model section, "Sometimes, new salespeople are promised...": None of the references mention Scentura Creations, and it's clear that they refer to incidents involving independent resellers. There is nothing in these references that describes Scentura's tactics or business model.


 * That's not true. I checked stories in the Columbus Dispatch, the Richmond Times-Dispatch, and the Intelligencer Journal, and every one of them talks about Scentura and its business practices and business model.  Since the stories aren't cited specifically in the article, I don't see how you can say that none of the references mention Scentura.  It's not clear now what the references are.  It will be soon, though, and they're accurate.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

6) Also in the Business Model section, "Employees are also sometimes...": Another statement that references sources that don't describe Scentura's business practices, but that of independent resellers. The incidents described in these sources are clearly not identifying the "subjects" as employees of Scentura Creations, therefore this statement should be removed. **Same thing for the immediate following sentence.


 * I'll get back to this one.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

7) I think a section should be added that addresses the abundance of complaint forums, or "scam" boards, that are prevalent online on which Scentura has received a lot of negative press. It's pretty clear that most of the complaints should are directed at the independent reseller for their own tactics, rather than Scentura, even if Scentura's name is mentioned.  Again, If I go to an auto dealership and receive poor service from the sales staff, do I blame the car manufacturer, or take my issue up with dealership management. In the interest of providing unbiased and neutral information regarding Scentura, seems like something should be mentioned about that.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.219.201.92 (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * This one too.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:26, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Look, I am not going to go around and around for years with employees of Scentura, arguing the same facts. I dont have the enegery or desire. The only source I need is this: above. The  state of Illinois ruled that Scentura was a "pyramid sales scheme". They connected the behavior of Scentura with the behavior of the distributors.
 * If we need to anon, we can request a checkuser and find out if you are Nick Bruson, an internet designer involved in Scentura. You have not been banned from editing this page, but if this continues, you will be. People with Conflict of Interests are restricted all the time from editing pages.
 * As this last deletion discussion showed, the community as a whole will not be pursuaded by Scentura's obfuscations. The more you push to remove the history of Scentura, the more people in the community will be alerted to your behavior.
 * What was the result of the last whitewash attempt?
 * An alert to the Conflict of Interest board.
 * One Conflict of Interest editor found out that an internet designer involved in Scentura, Nick Brunson, was removing all the sources and created the whitewashed article.
 * We then had a deletion discussion which was closed SNOWBALL keep.
 * The Article Rescue Squadron, WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fashion WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Business were all alerted to this article.
 * Active veteran editors User:Northamerica1000 and User:alf.laylah.wa.laylah are now involved in the article, making sure no more mass source deletions occur.
 * END RESULT: The article is tighter and better written than it was before all this happened. The exact opposite of what you wanted has happened: the stronger points are now more emphasized (State of Illinois decision) and the weaker points have been removed (urban legends).
 * The more attempts to whitewash the history of Scentura, the more the community will be alerted to this article. It is a circle which will only result in a stronger article in the end. As the past two snowball keep deletion discussions show, wikipedians have never had very much patience with pyramid sales scheme supporters.
 * Calendar2 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments from Jason Parker:

I'm new to Wikipedia so pardon my lack of understanding of how to use the right characters and codes, etc.

I have heard of Scentura Creations through a friend and former fellow student who has recently become involved with them. He has worked with this company for about three weeks now. When he told me what he was doing, being interested in business and marketing, I did some research. Initially I was negative about Scentura as there is an overwhelming amount of bad press on Google. However, the more I read, the more I struggle to find legitimate information on Scentura. Most of what you find is on RipOffReport.com, etc. and those sites are hardly credible. I assumed Wikipedia would be the one place to find well supported statements of fact regarding Scentura, but this article seems more like a slam page. And having read some of the sections on this talk, I'm not the only one who thinks so. The two main issues I see are this:

1. Statements are being made about Scentura based on references that don't identify them in the article (this seems to be the main argument of the person listed just above).

2. The Illinois Appellate Court's verbiage, identifying Scentura as a "pyramid scheme," is really confusing. First of all, pyramid schemes are illegal in the United States (and many other countries). And according to Scentura's website, they have been in business for 36 years. That doesn't add up. How does a business operate for that long with an illegal business model. And according to the definition of pyramid scheme (which is mirrored by Wikipedia's own definition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyramid_scheme), it's a non-sustainable business model that is supported by payments from new entrants. I asked my friend if he paid anything to join, and he said no. Supposedly that's one of the selling points during the recruiting process of the office he works at... "No investment required." So if that's the case, how does Scentura, a company that has been in business for 36 years and doesn't require upfront fees, qualify as a pyramid scheme? Multi-level marketing, maybe, but not a pyramid.

There are plenty of other places one can go to get biased and uncensored information about how awful Scentura is. But this should be the one place where the information is unbiased and well sourced, which it falls way short of.

Sidenote: Calendar2 seems to have a personal issue with anyone taking up Scentura's side. But he/she does make valid points about whitewashing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OregonDucks97401 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 30 November 2011 (UTC)