Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mantria Corporation Ponzi scheme


 * 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-administrator closure) NorthAmerica1000 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mantria Corporation Ponzi scheme

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was originally listed as a prod until contested. I believe the article does not have sufficient coverage to meet notability guidelines, relies too much on primary sources, and suffers from lacking a neutral point of view. This subjects it to the risks of synthesis and BLP concerns. I also do not feel this topic covers more information than similar events listed at List of Ponzi schemes. Mike V •  Talk  04:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and move to "Mantria Corporation". The fact that the business was a Ponzi scheme should be dealt with in the body of the article, rather than the title. Here is significant coverage of the company and its legal problems. I agree with the nominator regarding over-reliance on primary sources, especially court cases. The solution is not deletion, but instead normal editing to remove weak content and references, and improve the article. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  05:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep- It is a very relevant article. I had written over 10,000 characters for this article and one particular admin had issues with one of my sources and deleted the entire article. How Mantria had scammed more than $50M using 55 LLCs and to be deemed the largest green energy scam in US history by Denver's 5280 Magazine is a very interesting article, including how it was deemed a Ponzi by a Federal Judge in the SEC's civil case, but the Department of Justice has not acted, yet. the admin Mike V also believes it is sufficiently covered in the Ponzi Schemes page, both those couple of sentences do not cover as needed. The solution is not deletion.Richtowragg (talk) 11:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 00:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Delete for failing WP:EVENT. It doesn't seem to have gotten much media attention, from what I could find in Highbeam. Just your garden variety scam that has no lasting national significance. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep - relevant article. --BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Davey 2010 •  (talk)  16:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep, as a notable crime, although the citation form is a nightmare. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 10 September 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.