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 delete. Sandstein 10:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Direct Selling News

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is about a trade magazine for multi-level marketing/pyramid scheme companies. Finding signal in the noise of the search results for this is actually quite difficult: MLM companies tend to encourage the creation of spam websites on the part of their "distributors". If you pore over the results long enough, you will find that there is no evidence of coverage, discussion, or citations that would meet WP:N or WP:NMAG. There are a number of Google Books hits but they are exclusively self-published claptrap. A Train^talk 12:02, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am on the fence about this. Clearly this is an entity that exists and is using its platform to disseminate information. Readers may turn to Wikipedia to determine whether this source is reliable. If it is at all possible to provide readers with an accurate picture of the biases and motivations of the publishers of that source, I feel that we have a duty to carry this out. However, I do understand that there is a signal-to-noise issue, so I would suggest moving it to draft space pending the discovery of usable sources. bd2412 T 16:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In response to the above "fence" position, being an anti-MLM watchdog organization isn't part of WP's mission. If there are not sufficient RS for this piece then there are not. If there are at some future date, then a new article, based entirely on those RS, can be created. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 04:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about we move it to draft space, and if it is not improved with the addition of reliable sources, it will automatically be deleted in due time. bd2412 T 19:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been around (and pretty terrible) for seven years. It hasn't seen a major edit in two-and-a-half. If there were good sources out there they would have turned up by now, I think. A Train^talk 20:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving it to draft would test that. A page moved to draft space and then abandoned for six months is automatically deleted. If anyone wants to save it, they'll need to put in the work there. bd2412 T 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Usually when we draftify something at AfD it's because someone is clamoring to work on the article and save it. Nobody has turned up to make a keep argument for this thing in nearly a week. The article's had just two unique editors in over two years. I personally don't get what is so special here to merit unusual measures. But if you want to move the article to draft space, BD, I'll withdraw the nom. A Train^talk 23:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even consider the measure unusual. I frequently close AfDs by moving them to draft if there is a poorly sourced but likely notable subject with an absence of clear consensus for keeping or deleting. bd2412 T 01:10, 25 October 2017 (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.