Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldVentures (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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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

I created this article but I now feel the company might not be notable enough, especially since the few reliables sources we had are now dead links. None of the current sources appears to be reliable as they are mostly press releases and such, or are not about WorldVentures. Besides, the article is now only edited by paid editors and single-purpose accounts with a clear conflict of interest. Laurent (talk) 06:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It would seem that a company to near $100 million in annual revenue within its first 4 years deserves a page. Furthermore, surely the accusations of illegal corporate structure (Pyramid Scheme) and the ensuing controversy only increases notoriety. They are rumored to be the number one travel broker for both Carnival Cruise lines and Royal Caribbean(to be added if and only if appropriate sources are found). Additionally Dr Charles King, who teaches Network Marketing at the University of Illinois at Chicago, proclaimed WorldVentures an industry leader in travel.I have made every effort to comply with Wikipedia's standards and have posted on reliable sources talk page as well as Dreadstar who placed the initial lock on the article. Current Sources are industry specific published magazines (which also feature similar NM giants Avon Products, AMWAY, Mary Kay. Better Business Bureau and a press release I know little about(nor did I add). I intend to dramatically improve the content but, as I am still learning, the current page is a bit sparse. I realize I am new and my opinion may not carry much weight but I am no paid editor - However, this is my first edit which is why it took me so long to find sources. I have had this Wikipedia account for years and not made an attempt to edit anything so clearly I could not have created this for single-purpose editing. In being a new editor I only hope to learn how to better present topics as I have always been a fan of Wikipedia. Crossfiregk (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)Crossfiregk
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep per Crossfiregk. Peridon (talk) 16:20, 23 February 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.