Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Studiotraffic (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   no consensus. Nja 247 08:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Studiotraffic
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about a web company with very suspicious business practices, that currently cites no real sources. I tried as best I could to find any kind of reliable source for this company, but nothing turned up. The google hits, although at about ~70,000, contain nothing suitable. Many of the hits aren't about the website, and those that are all seem to be one or another kind of self-published source. It's very true that the company is presently under investigation by the US department of justice, but even that has only been mentioned in blogs and forums. So in conclusion, this company has done nothing but get some customers to complain about it on the internet, and get itself placed under an investigation that hasn't even generated a press release. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nja 247 09:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Google news search yields mostly false friends and blog / message board posts.  Does not appear to be a notable crime. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have added 4 reliable links to show what the original page looked like on the last day it was up (Mar 29, 2006). I did this for both Studiotraffic and Studiopay.  In addition I provided a link to the legal action taken by the Oklahoma Department of Securities back in 2006.  Also, I have been providing information to a Syracuse, NY newspaper which is about to publish an article on the DOJ prosecution of one of Studiotraffic/Studiopay's manager's for wire fraud.  Once the article is published I will link this also.  This should happen within the next few days. I am continuing to add new sources/references/links. I should mention that one major reason for the lack of "proof" of this being a scam is the long time it has taken to (1) locate the responsible parties, (2) collect the evidence, (3) keep the investigation "private" inside the DOJ/FBI/NY Police.  The authorities are very reluctant to release any information on their ongoing investigation even if it takes years as is the case here.  This prosecution of a Studiotraffic/StudioPay manager in New York will be the 1st legal case brought to an end.  Of course the "big guy" in this is still out there "John Horan". Berkeleyman (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2009 (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.