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. (non-admin closure) sst✈^(conjugate) 06:26, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ConsumerAffairs[edit]

ConsumerAffairs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For spam and questionable notability. The entire lede is one long run-on promotion backed by quote-mine passing-mentions & list cites. Article has apparent history of paid editing (or so one gathers from the talk page). Subject business is a sleazy "reputation ransom" site that harvests and solicits negative reviews of companies, all of which are invariably rated 1 star, except for those paying to become an accredited partner (in which case their rating miraculously becomes 4 to 5 stars). No listed sources are specifically about the company except the one exposing it (the "Criticism" section I added a few weeks ago). Froglich (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lakun.patra (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Most of the gnews is its own site. Lacking third party coverage about the organisation as the subject . LibStar (talk) 08:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Mentions in CNN, CBS, TIME Magazine, Business Insider, Fox News, Fortune and The Washington Post are plenty of third-party coverage. It's honestly surprising to read that an editor would argue otherwise. The OP mentions the subject's policy of how they acquire their ratings but that doesn't have any bearing on whether it should be included on Wikipedia or not--notability is what determines that. I vote keep. CerealKillerYum (talk) 17:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are non-notable "trivial mentions" in which a reporter, in the context of them writing an article about some other subject, called around for quotations. (It should be noted that ConsumerAffairs' website is a very slick masquerade of a legitimate consumer site, and I can see how it'd be easy to fool someone, such as a lazy journalist, who isn't aware of how the entity actually generates its revenue and lack of reputability consequent.) --Froglich (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I'm a bit worried about a COI here, if the article was neutral it would already have had more about the charging controversy without it having to be added by the editor Froglich Atlantic306 (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just used this article to research a project I am working on. If there is a COI problem, cut that crap right out of the article. What I found useful was the link to TruthInAdvertising.org, where there is a critical article. Jehochman ^Talk 02:32, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ITSUSEFUL not a reason for keeping. LibStar (talk) 07:24, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's most important purpose is to be a useful resource. If people come to Wikipedia looking for info about a particular topic, as I did, Wikipedia should provide an article. We most certainly aren't here to spew alphabet soup at other editors. Moreoever, I found the references in the article to be useful. This is a very strong reason to keep an article. Jehochman ^Talk 03:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh look, the essay you cited said, "Remember, you need to say why the article is useful or useless; this way other editors can judge whether it's useful and encyclopedic, and whether it meets Wikipedia's policies. Without that explanation, it does not make a valid argument." If you look right above, up a couple lines, you see I said "I just used this article to research a project I am working on... What I found useful was the link to TruthInAdvertising.org" My comment was exactly following the guidance to state a reason why something is useful. Upon close review your comment mis-represents policy. Jehochman ^Talk 03:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article looks fine to me. I have been using it for referencing. I don’t think that there is sufficient reason for the deletion. Plenty of media citations, far more than many other pages. Edyang (talk) 17:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at best and improve if needed as this is a potential article. SwisterTwister talk 21:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.