Talk:Ultimate Fragrance

Blanked Page
I think that people out there, especially in St. Louis should be aware of this company and all of it's names and how it works. If you would like to take down my post, please at least add the information to other pages and include Ultimate to the list of searchable names so the scam can be evaded! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DontGetShafted (talk • contribs) 20:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

With over 10,000 jobs lost this month in the St. Louis area, this company is looking to prey on hundreds of people and why shouldn't information be available to the people to help them make an educated decision?


 * The page contained private emails between the individual and the company. By inclusion here, on Wikipedia could constitute copyright infringement, and may even be construed as libel. ShoesssS Talk 19:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * there is no way that material can be presented here in that format. I have removed it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the speedy, but the article needs more information about the company itself. As for the accusations, I need to look at the citations. I've already removed some less than relevant material.  DGG (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Something wonky with the sources here - at least half go to a diatribe at ripoffreports even if they cite a different news agency. some of those sources are mentioned *within* that diatribe but it's a confusing mess to say the least. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Further wonkness - most of those "sources" are about companies that buy off the company. It seems to be part of an Original research attempt to link them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * ROR is reprinting newspaper sources from elsewhere--we occasionally do use such material as a convenience link if we have exact proof of original publication., In this case, I do not find it acceptable or, for that matter, necesssary. I am removing all material not sourced directly to an established newspaper &  I am removing all material sourced only to a newspaper without date and page.  There's a Ill. Court of Appeals decision included in the refs.; we normally do not include court documents, considering them primary sources in need of interpretation, though an appeals judgement setting forth the facts of the case as they find it can sometimes be used (unlike more preliminary material) I think this one can stand. . Normal practice for article of this sort is to pare them down drastically to an article, not a diatribe,, removing inflammatory quotation from the references. I'm doing this, and will see what is left at the end. On balance, this particular scam may be notable enough to be worth the work. I think there's a core of properly citable material.  (as for the last comment, read the court decision--this is normal for a multilevelmarketing scam & is a routine part of the attempt at disguise. I do not consider linking them to be OR, given the sources. DGG (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's original research to take a court report and say that's happened in every case - even when the sources don't mention it. It's a leap we can't take. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge with Scentura Creations?
If this company is one of the many names Scentura Creations goes by, couldn't it be merged with it? Everything here seems to be on that page as well, but Scentura's has more information. --Susan118 (talk) 16:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)