Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freeipods.com

Somebody doesn't like this website. RickK 04:44, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Yes, it looks like they don't like it, otoh, though, it all seems verifiable and not to far off NPOV, though could perhaps use some tidying.  As for notable, I've seen lots of advertisements for it.  So what's the reason for deleting it? For now, Keep. Someone posting negative stuff about something that is uniquely bad isn't POV, it's just true.--Samuel J. Howard 05:15, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * We really can't keep an article that attacks a website that hasn't been involved in legal actions. RickK 05:26, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Why can't we?--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * You do understand the Neutral point of view, don't you?
 * Difficult: They make a compelling case and link to the US Federal watchlists on the scam in general, so it's informative rather than a rant.  I'll say that we should delete it, but not because it's an attack.  For one thing, I think that, other than "classic pyramid scheme" (which could be neutralized just by saying, "may be" or "some critics have called it"), it's not really a rant.  Instead, I vote delete because it's a site review and/or a consumer protection argument. Geogre 12:21, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * But it's not opinion, but fact about a site that seems to be fairly notable (through prolific advertising granted). It's at least a good example of its type.--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I don't think there are substantial POV problems. I also think that folks ought to be warned about this spammer.  I don't think that a stand-alone works, though, because of our prohibition on reviews and web guides.  Would it be possible to have a discussion of the questionable value of this site in one of the articles on the scam?  E.g. could this article, in a slightly condensed form, be "Examples" or "Current examples" of matrix scheme? Geogre 13:40, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * FreeiPods.com is a legitamate matrix scheme. It has been proven to work. Check this out for more info: . Keep. 24.58.46.3 14:35, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * a legit matrix scheme?? Did you read the article matrix scheme that you linked to, it says that they are of "questionable legality".--Samuel J. Howard 18:58, Aug 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Not notable. Spam. Delete with extreme prejudice. - Brisby 04:02, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Even if the heart of the article is in the right place, we should still delete this article, since it encourages spam. I just delivered a warning message to User:24.186.133.51 earlier today since he was spamming both Freeipods.com and iPod with links to the freeipods.com website.  These spammers and their websites do not even deserve the dignity of a mention in our work.  --Ardonik 05:37, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)
 * Although it's likely a scam, it's still quite notable. Just about every web forum I've visited has had posts related to this thing, and I've referred in some of my forum replies to this wikipedia article to try to convince folks not to participate. According to Alexa, it has a current traffic rank of 3838 (slashdot has 2164) and a reach rank of 2546. Keep --NeuronExMachina 20:50, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. I feel like I'm starting to sound like a broken record, but encyclopedic content means something to me. One thing that I find important for something to be of encyclopedic content is that it must be able to stand the test of time. It is a warning of a scheme. Is it a valid warning? It sounds like it. Is it an important message? Probably. Is it notable? Some seem to think so. But if the website/scheme goes away tomorrow, will the article still have any meaning? In my opinion, no. If it goes to court or the FTC takes strong legal action setting precedent, I would reconsider this opinion as those facts may be relevant for making it a good example of a scheme and the consequences. But as it stands now, I say delete due to lack of encyclopedic content. Skyler 02:13, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete - T&#949;x  &#964;  ur&#949;  15:31, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep Rhymeless 05:10, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. While rational and based on some facts, the article is mostly opinion/warning that will not stand the test of time. If cut back to only the encyclopedic content, it would be deleted as non-notable. We already have plenty of good articles warning of the dangers of spam, pyramid schemes, etc. Rossami 13:55, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete regretfully. A worthy cause, but not encyclopedic. Bishonen 17:36, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Postdlf 03:14, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete- Spam. Balatant Spam. -MegamanZero 15:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)