Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell For Cash


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. (non-admin closure) Acather96 (talk) 11:23, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Cell For Cash

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page is serving as a tacit/implicit Wikipedia endorsement of a non-notable company that is widely maligned online as fraudulent and deceptive. This company does not merit Wikipedia's imprimatur. jengod (talk) 19:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 04:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * weak keep as cleaned up with promo language removed. It's not wikipedia's "approval" of the company to be writing about it, and the references are to reputable sources (CNN among others). Sources seem to indicate bare minimum notability, but notability none-the-less. HominidMachinae (talk) 21:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. (ec) There seems to be some contradiction in the assertion that the company is both "non notable" and "widely maligned online". I don't think that not liking something counts as a valid deletion rationale either. So whilst I make no recommendation either way whether the article is appropriate, I think a more compelling case needs to be put. RichardOSmith (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - there's probably enough coverage in reliable sources for an article; besides those already included, I found this and this, for instance. The fact that they're 'widely maligned online as fraudulent and deceptive' doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article - on the contrary, it adds to their grounds for notability! It just means we have to take care to keep it NPOV and make sure a fair view of the company is presented. Robofish (talk) 18:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep Seems to pass notability muster per the above comments. Monty 845 (talk) 08:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.