Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market America (3rd 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:46, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Market America
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Fails WP:NCORP. Refs are routine business news and litigation links.  scope_creep Talk  09:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: More input on WP:CORP vs. prior AfD discussions please Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  16:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and North Carolina.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is effectively the same reason that was brought up in the second nomination when it was determined to meet GNG/NCORP. Here are the changes to the article since that nomination. It's certainly a headache with driveby promotional edits and those trying to distance it from the multi-level label, but summed it up well with "Promotional, but fixable." tedder (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment That last Afd nomination was in 2015, between 2 and 3 years before WP:NCORP notability policy was put in place. The criteria is much stricter now.   scope_creep Talk  21:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep, appears to be notable (barely) based on coverage. The CBS article (from 2017, since the last AfD) for example is clearly feature coverage not routine coverage. you said the refs were all routine, are you planning to amend that misleading statement? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * They are routine dude. CBS is reporting litigation and that not secondary coverage. It is entirely routine. We will go through the reference today.   scope_creep Talk  08:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The CBS piece is not routine coverage... It is feature and it is secondary... there is no way around that one. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:12, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No its not. Consensus on this is clear. The litigation comes from the operations of the company, they are just reporting it as they have a duty of care to report cout proceedings. There is no journalistic intellectual process on the go to find this information out. It is not news.  Court proceedings gets reported to the CBS news desk automatically and they report from there.  it. It is not WP:SECONDARY coverage. Its is absolutely WP:PRIMARY coverage and its been known in the newspaper industry from 100 years that its primary.     scope_creep Talk  15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * There is no journalistic duty of care to report court proceedings. The article in question is feature coverage which goes well beyond court proceedings, it clearly meets the standard laid out at NCORP which you apparently need to go read. This is secondary coverage, the outlet (CBS is not a newspaper) is not involved in the story and is clearly providing general analysis such as "Like distributors at other MLMs such as Herbalife (HLF) Amway, Mary Kay, and LuLaRoe, Market America distributors earn money both from selling products and attracting new members to their sales team. MLM critics have argued for years that very few distributors earn a significant profit. People looking for part-time work, such as stay-at-home parents, however, are drawn to the industry. According to data from the Direct Selling Association, a trade group, distributors added $35 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes there is and you clearly don't understand how these things work. There is no general analysis in the reference. Its all from the company.
 * The only part which is not general analysis is "According to data from the Direct Selling Association, a trade group, distributors added $35 billion to the U.S. economy in 2015." which is not from the company but from a trade group. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 01:52, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Relisting comment: A source analysis was alluded to but not present in the discussion yet. Right now though, there is no support for Deletion aside from the nomination statement. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep: per . They've been the subject of several investigations, and those have been written about with SIGCOV. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:28, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment I will take a look at the references tommorrow.   scope_creep Talk  00:05, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment Lets examine the references for this dreadful article. I'll look at the first two blocks. The article has had at least three tranches of updates since 2018.
 * Ref 1 Profile in Inc. A paid for profile and is WP:PRIMARY, failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 2 Company balance sheet non-rs.
 * Ref 3 It has been stated above that is a secondary source, but some of it been copied from either company website and the court documents. I think the majority is WP':PRIMARY and is not indepedent of the company. It is reporting the lawsuit combined with details of the company structure.
 * Ref 4 It is an interview with JR Ridinger. It is not independent.
 * Ref 5 Single sentence. Not significant.
 * Ref 6 Its a profile of the company, describing its function. Its not significant.
 * Ref 7   TINA sent them a letter.  Its not significant either.
 * Ref 8 An affiliate for the Bloomberg story above in Ref 4.
 * Ref 9 Based on a press-release.
 * Ref 10 Registring for an IPO.
 * Ref 11 Based on a press-release.
 * Ref 12 A routine annoucement of shop.com being bought. A press-release.
 * Ref 13 ] It is an scheduled event listing. Non-rs.
 * Ref 14 It is a press-release.
 * Ref 15 Unable to see this.
 * Ref 16 It is the shop front. Non-rs.
 * Ref 17 Press-release site.

Right lets look at these in turn
 * Ref 1 Failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 2 Non-RS
 * Ref 3 Reporting on the company litigation + some content from company site. I think it is WP:PRIMARY. It is a not true WP:SECONDARY source.
 * Ref 4 Not independent.
 * Ref 5 Single sentence. Not significant. Failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 6 Profiile. Not significant. Failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 7 Not specific to the company. Can't be used to prove notability.
 * Ref 8 Not independent. Failing WP:SIRS.
 * Ref 9 Non-RS
 * Ref 10 WP:PRIMARY and not a reference.
 * Ref 11 Non-RS
 * Ref 12 Non-RS
 * Ref 13 Non-RS
 * Ref 14 Non-RS
 * Ref 15 Unable to see it.
 * Ref 16 Non-RS
 * Ref 17 Non-RS

Of the 17 references, 8 are Non-rs. 4 fails WP:SIRS, 2 are WP:PRIMARY and 1 I can't see. It is a very poor listing of junk refs for this junk company that doesn't deserve an article on Wikipedia. There is simply no coverage to support an article that size. Its all scrap.  scope_creep Talk  13:27, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Profiles of the company aren't significant coverage? Also note that you were asked for analysis but there is none, you've asserted that sources are primary/fail SIRS but your idea of "fails SIRS" doesn't appear to match the community's, which I believe has been an issue before... No? You've never had anyone mention to you that your ideas about notability don't match our community standards? Also note that notability is based on articles that exist, not just those in the article and you appear to have limited your non-analysis to the sources in the article. For example the WSJ article counts towards notability even though it isn't currently being used in the article, same with the Independent. You've neglected to analyze any of the coverage around JR Ridinger's 2022 death or coverage of Loren Ridinger (its their personal company, nobody separates coverage of Market America from coverage of the Ridingers) Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:10, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment' Only you apparently. This isn't the JR Ridinger article. That is a different subject. Does it say that at that top of the article dude? His death has nothing to do with the company. We are discussing Market America only. The differentiation between the man and the company has been in effect since about 2007-2008. That is consensus based notability criteria for people. You seem to be confusing the two, which shows your inexperience. More so I'm starting to think you have a WP:COI in this somehow.        scope_creep Talk  15:35, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * This article is currently the article for both founders, both redirect here. Again the sources don't separate coverage of the Ridingers and Market America because there isn't any. "The differentiation between the man and the company has been in effect since about 2007-2008." what bizarre sexism, are women just irrelevant in this analysis? You can make a post at the COI noticeboard, what you can not do is use a COI accusation as an unsupported personal attack here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand that everyone is fustrated by a discussion that isn't going anywhere but can the both of you dial things back a little before a sysop decides to get involved? Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you can't participate in a deletion discussion without casting aspersions towards those editors you disagree with, then please stop participating in these discussions. No matter how experienced an editor is, no editor's contribution is worth it if they contribute to creating a toxic atmosphere and discourage other editors from participating in these discussions. Many editors have stopped coming to AFDs because they consider it a hostile environment, let's not perpetuate that perception. Focus on the article, not each other. Liz Read! Talk! 03:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what happens when a finished discussion gets relisted after its already run its course, there isn't anything left to say but the same people saying more has been requested so it dissolves into mud slinging. What did you expect to happen Liz? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 04:15, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You object strongly to Market America covering the Ridingers but would you object to a page on the Ridingers covering Market America? At the end of the day we have a notable topic here, how we choose to organize it is a secondary question. Would you object to making the main page JR and Loren Ridinger instead of Market America? Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per Nom. CaribDigita (talk) 14:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources here. Horse Eye&#39;s Back has done a good job of laying it out previously in this discussion. The subject meets WP:NCORP. Jacona (talk) 18:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of coverage. Really. That is bit of wide of the mark is it not.   scope_creep Talk  06:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure how much use an analysis of the sources is at this point in the discussion, but on general principles I'd like to comment on routineness and primaryness. Routine coverage is, of course, considered trivial under our notability criteria, but CORP does not go into detail about what is and is not considered routine, merely giving a list of examples that the CBS article is not covered under. We can draw on WP:ILLCON, which states that Sources that primarily discuss purely such [(alleged) illegal] conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability under this guideline. but this is not too satisfying if the underlying principle is unclear. Instead, we can take a look at WP:ROUTINE's ... crime logs, and other items that tend to get an exemption from newsworthiness discussions should be considered routine. In a following sentence, it names (and links to) an essay somewhat controversial at AfD (at least by my memory, I could be wrong), WP:MILL. So what makes an event run-of-the-mill? How can we tell that from the coverage? The question is whether the coverage of the various investigations, indictments, lawsuits and whatever is beyond what one might expect of a typical lawsuit or investigation of an entity (incidentally, for BIO articles, this is often the more correct criterion, better than the frequently misapplied 1E). The answer, is depth. Depth, analysis, the quality of the content for use as a source on Wikipedia, of course, is tied closely to the second question. WP:PRIMARY, again, seems quite rarely applied at AfD, but despite the difficulty, it is important to draw the distinction between fact, opinion and analysis. Neither "like other MLMs, this MLM does MLM things" nor "MLM critics criticise MLMs" are analysis of the subject of the article. The paragraph about startup fees, that part could be independent, but it wouldn't be secondary, because it wouldn't be analysis. There's no context there, it's just the facts. It should be needless to say, but the direct quotes are also not analysis. There is no significant coverage in the CBS article by our notability criteria.
 * I'm also not entirely clear how it's sexist to expect coverage to be of the subject of the article, but we can also analyse the coverage with regards to the biographical notability of the founders. The WSJ article again falls under criminal events (WP:CRIME / WP:NCRIME). It is honestly not clear what could be considered significant coverage in that, perhaps the changes in plan which made things complicated? I don't really see how much of the specifics of "Ridinger and Ridinger found out that it's really complicated to donate yachts" would fit in a biographical article, but I'm willing to call that a maybe. The rest is a hard no though. The Independent article is entirely primary, the coverage of the death? Almost entirely quotes from reactions. While it's of course very sad that someone has died and the event is certainly significant to them, the coverage cannot be used for establishing biographical notability as it is entirely primary, routine, trivial. Here are some quotes because I got COVID? Trivial, primary, and non-independent besides. Miami Herald is an interview, I cannot access the Law360 article so it is not evaluated, but I expect to give it at best a maybe like the WSJ. Ignoring the next two interviews, the boat article is at best coverage of the boat. No, the biographical coverage is not up to standard either.
 * For whatever it's worth, delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I believe you've confusing coverage of a civil case with coverage of a criminal case, ILLCON and NCRIME only applies to criminal cases. I'm also not sure how you get from "In 1999, Market America bought a steel-hulled Feadship yacht and named it Utopia II." to "the boat article is at best coverage of the boat." Horse Eye&#39;s Back (talk) 16:33, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I see no reason for the distinction if the basis is routineness, if you're going to assert that lawsuits are not covered I'd like to see prior AfDs with that interpretation please, as it's certainly not in the text of any of those guidelines either; and quite frankly if you're going to call a namecheck coverage I don't know what to say to that. But I was actually referring to the other boat article, the one you linked, you know, the one after the interviews. I thought I'd go through things in order. As an aside, I'm not really impressed by the number of sources you linked either, when they say "quantity has a quality all its own", I'm fairly sure that was not intended to apply to trivial coverage at AfD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure why the article I was referring to is even a question since I'm fairly sure I went through the WSJ earlier, but for reference I gave the WSJ article a maybe. That's on biographical sigcov, on the company is a no. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:12, 1 October 2023 (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.