Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kiss Trust


 * 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   delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiss Trust

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable company with very few reliable sources outside press releases. Written by a possible single-purpose account. Vectro (talk) 12:31, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable and not supported by sufficient independent sources. NawlinWiki (talk) 13:10, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiss Trust is being targeted for defending itself from false and slanderous statements posted online. Kiss Trust asked for the information to be deleted from the offending post and in retaliation has been met with this action. The current post is in the same informational vein as Legal Zoom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.172.183 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 12 March 2014‎ (UTC)


 * Note that 50.204.172.183 resolves to a Comcast Business connection in Warrenton, VA, which matches kisstrust.com's WHOIS record. Jpatokal (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The page must stand on its own merits, whether or not it was tagged for deletion by anyone familiar with the request Kiss Trust made for another website to remove allegedly slanderous (libelous?) content. It also must meet notability guidelines whether or not the page for Legal Zoom meets them, which is controversial (see its edit history). Tripleahg (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

DELETE

I looked at this WIKI post a few minutes ago and there were facts concerning Kiss Trust threatening Mr. Money Mustache's blog. I have seen copies of the letters that are doing this. Now the WIKI site says "Kiss Trust has been accused of making frivolous legal takedown requests and legal threats against web site owners for users commenting negatively about their business." They have not been accused, they are guilty--they have threatened. This site was originally written by just one person and it does sound like advertising. Nothing here is helpful to the public. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.37.35 (talk) 18:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:14, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. A few mentions of this company and its services on financial advice websites is insufficient. The Hoover's report on this company is a bare shell. There is very little, if any, coverage from true independent sources. The references provided in the article are from PR companies and are written like advertisements (as is the article itself). I did a search on "Kiss Trust" to turn up more reliable sources, however, I could not locate any. The legal spat between this company and one online community is non-notable as well, even if it makes the news, because Wikipedia is not a record of all newsworthy events; there must be enduring notability, and I'm reasonably sure that this dispute will be forgotten in a few weeks or months. Unless multiple independent sources are found to establish notability for this company, this article should be deleted. Richard Yetalk 21:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Two of the sources are straight up press releases (including the one attributed to the ironically-named Mel Fabrikant). This entire article is written as an advertisement and has not demonstrated its notability. Fmitterand (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable, as demonstrated by Richard Ye. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Kiss Trust is being legitimately exposed because they are guilty of making frivolous legal threats, and for writing puffery and whitewashing criticism on their own wikipedia page, in violation of Wikipedia conflict of interest rules. The weaseling statement "Kiss Trust asked for the information to be deleted from the offending post" is misleading: provide evidence of who they asked, and what did they ask them to do. They certainly did not write anything on the talk page asking for consensus. The person they asked to directly edit the page in violation of wikipedia rules may well have been an employee or a paid agent, it was certainly not the wikipedia community. Kiss Trust appears to be paying agents to edit their page directly without discussing it on the talk page, and then trying to play the victim. 92.108.60.150 (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The Streisand effect doesn't make this company notable. Article meets the criteria for speedy deletion under WP:A7. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:15, 16 March 2014 (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.