Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melaleuca, Inc

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. -- Cirt (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Melaleuca, Inc

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

Page is written like an advertisement for this MLM company, with serious NPOV violations. Problems have persisted for over a year (and are getting worse with time, not better), and various editors have been consistently deleting the maintenance tags during this time. The advertisement tag has now been present for 3 months, with the only substantive edits being removal of the tags contary to talk page consensus. Since it seems unlikely at this point that the article will be re-written to correct these issues without action, it seems that the article should be deleted until/unless someone is willing to step up to re-write it in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Alereon (talk) 03:21, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm in two minds over this. I think the coy is notable per WP:CORP but see little in the article that's salvagable and so a complete rewrite is probably whats needed. I'd lean towards a delete unless someone volunteered to do a major tidy and soon. I'm not in a position to do much personally in the short term. –Moondyne 04:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article as it is now is incredibly promotional and I'm not sure the sources that are relevant support anything less than what's there now. Shadowjams (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hopelessly promotional in tone, to the point that this ought to be speedy deleted as unambiguous advertising. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is more of a content problem as the company is clearly notable, and I hate to see content problems solved with deletion. As it stands, the the article is little more than an ad for a 'really, we're not an MLM' company and there has been a strong history of rewrites from throwaway accounts and IPs. I would suggest someone scour the article, and anything uncited removed. I would also not accept any "according to the company" lines and stick to solid third party references; including unaudited 'sales' figures. I'll take a shot at it later this week if I get a chance, and will revisit my delete !vote if someone else does the clean up before I circle around. Kuru (talk) 18:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC);[reply]

I take your point, but if you do that, we'd be left with a stub at best. I'm not convinced it's actually notable for a company. NZ forever (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True; not much better than a stub as most of the verifiable information I can find easily is legal coverage. Our bar for corporate notability is surprisingly low, however... Kuru (talk) 15:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak deleteI know my vote isn't worth much as I'm not a registered user. Seems to be notable as among MLMs (even if they deny being one), but page is hopelessly biased at the moment. I came across the article thru a reading binge on various MLMs marketing (and overhyping/overcharging for) a previously little known plant product. Seeing these guys mentioned in the same breath as those purveying mangosteen and noni juice is some level of notability I guess, but at least the articles for the mangosteen and noni companies are fairly unbiased.70.245.236.202 (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, this article is just an ad. NZ forever (talk) 07:31, 8 September 2010 (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.