Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market America (2nd nomination)


 * 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) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 18:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Market America
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Speedy deleted in 2007 but it was restarted and frankly this has not improved since with my searches also finding nothing better than this, this, this and this. Pinging past AfD commenter. Pinging, , , , , , and  and I would've also notified the author Mjchipl but it seems unlikely they'll come again. SwisterTwister  talk  06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Keep I have run a google search on the topic and the company's website comes up, yes, but there are also some business reviews for the site that I have found and it appears to use several inline citations that link to new stories about the company, as well as a listing in global 100 lists. Tjhe article is afull of issues and is written like an advertisment, although this is not a reason to delete it. I must admit that I don't fully understand your argument above, although the best I can tell is that you are faulting it through the Notability guideline, which I think that it meets. RailwayScientist (talk) 09:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep. Promotional, but fixable. I've just now  fixed the worst of it.  DGG ( talk ) 15:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, but surely we have real reasons for wanting to know as much as possible from Wikipedia about highly-"impactful" "network marketing" organizations like this. Wikipedia provides a real service by organizing the information into useful, carefully-reasoned bunches so that inquirers - honest inquirers - don't need to rely merely upon 100% promotional expressions about MA. MaynardClark (talk) 03:39, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include:, , , , , . North America1000 10:52, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – Of COURSE we keep because of the size and consequence of the topic. MaynardClark (talk) 13:35, 6 November 2015 (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.