Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scentura (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. Snow keep. Deletion concerns have been addressed. (non-admin closure) Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  02:18, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Scentura
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article appears to be a WP:COATRACK. There are lots and lots of sources quoted, and it is overwhelmingly negative. I tried looking back in the history for basic material about the company - size, location, etc. Even the first edit had a significant 'criticism' section. Syrthiss (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Further comment - also, possibly because of the overwhelming critical nature of it, we have what appears to be a string of COI editors who replace the content with excessively positive content. Syrthiss (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;I'm guessing that the sections of WP:COATRACK you're looking at here are WP:BITR and WP:CHERRY? Please correct me if I'm wrong.  Also, let me mention that I have not edited this article until this morning, and that I only found out about it by reading WP:COIN.  Anyway, I agree that the article's in bad shape, with single sentences cited to tens of sources.  However, I think that (a) this company is notable because it's been covered in newspapers extensively over decades, and (b) the coverage is overwhelmingly negative.  The criticisms of this company are the only thing that makes it notable.  If it weren't a scam, it wouldn't have a Wikipedia article.  The fact that most of the content in the article is negative is not cherry-picking, it's actually reflective of the proportions of positive vs. negative coverage in the press.  I'm not listing sources here to make a WP:GNG case, because they're present in the article already.  The COI editors and the lousy state of the article can be fixed by editing, which is what WP:COATRACK recommends, anyway.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:45, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, not so much cherry picking sources. I did a quick search, and the first page of google hits were the company's own website and a bunch of sites saying that they are scammers.  My superficial attempt at fixing it was when I said I searched back in the history to see if there was any neutral basic information about the company, and there wasn't.  COATRACK applies if we are saying 'here is an article about XX company', but what we really are saying is 'here is an article about the criticism of this company'.  I don't know why you mention that you haven't edited it until this morning - neither have I.  I saw the edits being reverted back and forth in Recent Changes. Syrthiss (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I just mentioned that I hadn't edited it because, like you say, there have been COI wars. I didn't mean to imply that you were part of them, I just wanted to point out to the world that I wasn't part of them either.&mdash; alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep SOFIXIT. We don't delete articles on notable topics just for violating NPOV, except for extreme problems in BLPs. Also, the article may not violate NPOV at all, since the policy requires POVs to be described proportionate to the coverage in RS. 50% positive, 50% negative is nothing more than a rough metric used when an alternate pattern in RS isn't apparent. If the available RS are overwhelmingly negative, then the article should be too. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If this was a BLP, and this negative, it would be deleted as an attack page. Also - have you edited here under another account?  You give the impression that you are an experienced editor, but your account is a only few days old (and the IPs you list and the timeframes also are very recent). Syrthiss (talk) 13:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really true. Charles Manson is a living person, yet his article is almost entirely negative. It makes little sense to require substantial amounts of favorable content in articles about people deriving their notoriety from criminal activities. Articles on fraudulent enterprises receive a similar treatment. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep per User:Alessandra Napolitano. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete This article has three dozen legitamate sources, all of which have a negative tone. Four years ago I took the extrordinary step of adding 13 of these sources here on Wikipedia: Talk:Scentura If anyone has a positive article about Scentura, they are welcome to add it. When you are dealing with a "pyramid sales scheme" (Illinois Appellate Court) the overwhelming information on this company will be negative. Most "pyramid sales scheme" articles will not be positive.< User:OlYeller21, wrote about Nick Brunson, "Nick Brunson is the web-admin for Scentura". Mr. Bruson has deleted several sources including the "pyramid sales scheme" ruling. There are many external articles that Mr. Brunson has wrote showing that he has a definite Confict of interest WP:COI.Author of the "Larry Hahn" webpage Calendar2 (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2011 (UTC) — Calendar2 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – The topic has received significant press in many reliable sources. While much of the coverage may be criticisms of the company and its products, the topic appears to pass WP:GNG very thoroughly. Northamerica1000 (talk) 01:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Major Revisions –

Fact No. 1 - Scentura Creations distributes perfume to Independent Business owners on an international level (http://www.scenturacreations.com/about-overview-new.html). They do not sell perfume door-to-door.

Fact No. 2 - Scentura does not have salespeople. They have a receptionist, a customer service manager, a warehouse manager, a production coordinator, and a general manager. Therefore any reference to "Scentura Salespeople" on this page should be removed, and there are a lot of them.

Fact No. 3 - Due to the fact that Scentura's customers are Independent Distributors, they do not, and legally CANNOT, dictate the business practices of the businesses that resell their products. Therefore several entries, such as:

"Sometimes, new salespeople are promised large salaries and are later disappointed to discover that the actual position has no salary and is a 100% commission job."

"The only income is from selling knock off perfume door-to-door or in parking lots."

"Employees are also sometimes encouraged by independent distributors to lie about the products they are selling."

"Scentura salespeople have been in trouble with police for soliciting without a permit."

...should be deleted because none of these instances describe SCENTURA'S business practices, or people that are employed by, or are dictated by Scentura Creations. These entries describe business practices of Independent Distributors, and therefore should be noted on the Wikipedia page for the Independent Distributor in question.

Fact No. 3 - W.M.I. was not a door-to-door sales business. W.M.I. had the same business model as Scentura Creations - distributing to Independent Resellers. W.M.I. never employed any salespeople.

Other items:

1. The entry regarding...

"There is an urban legend that similar tactics were being used by thieves who, instead of using perfume, would have the victim inhale a substance (reportedly ether) which would render her unconscious, whereupon she would be robbed."

should be removed because it is irrelevant. It even says in the article that there have been no credible reports. And besides, if someone gets robbed at knife point, should we blame Pampered Chef?

2. Everyone keeps talking about "reliable sources." Quite frankly, just about everyone of these sources is flawed because they are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor. For example, anytime you see something that says "Scentura now has an office in (insert city)," the article is inaccurate by default because Scentura has only one location, their office and warehouse in Chamblee, GA.

3. If I go to a restaurant and receive poor service from the waiter, should I blame the restaurant's food supplier? No, I would take my issue up with the business owner. It is irresponsible to blame Scentura for something they have no control over, namely the business tactics of the customers that purchase their product.

4. It is also irresponsible to say that "Nationwide media coverage on the company has tended to be overwhelmingly negative." because, once again, these sources are falsely identifying Scentura as the Independent Distributor, and therefore CANNOT be considered legitimate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickBrunson (talk • contribs) — NickBrunson (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment - References from reliable sources recently removed from the article, which I replaced in it. I'm placing them here in the event that they're removed from the article again. GNG is met, period.


 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Of course an article written about this business from sources will be negative in tone; it's multi-level marketing, after all. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The company meets our inclusion guidelines due to the press coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Northamerica1000 has proven it gets significant coverage in reliable sources, thus its notable.  D r e a m Focus  06:57, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy or snow keep due to the fact that in two AfDs now, no one aside from the nominator has said to delete. It is clear that enough the community find the topic sufficiently notable for inclusion on Wikipedia and since notability is not temporary, it would be pointless and disruptive for a third go around after this one.  --24.154.173.243 (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2011 (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.