Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse funnel system

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 redirect to Pyramid scheme. Cirt (talk) 06:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Reverse funnel system (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Obvious SPAM. Article's references criticize this pyramid scheme for the sole purpose of promoting a second one. Repeat occurrence, strongly recommend salt, or protect as redirect to Pyramid scheme Reswobslc (talk) 07:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Although I agree that the current references are problematic, the article can be improved by rewording to remove any bias and adding more references, efforts that Reswobslc has consistently blocked by getting the article (semi-)protected,[1][2][3] reverting, and screaming "it's spam spam spam" rather than engaging in a constructive discussion on the Talk page.[4][5][6] Reswobslc has created the article himself as a redirect to the pyramid scheme article, where the term is not mentioned at all. Obviously, this is not a proper use of a redirect per WP:REDIRECT and now that the most recent request for protection is declined because of improper use to settle a content dispute[7], he resorts to inproper use of AfD per WP:DP#Discussion. As for notability, the Google test gives 454,000 results for "reverse funnel system" [8]. The article implies that this is the result of Google bombing. The subject seems to be heavily advertised and reliable information on the web is completely overwhelmed by the Google bombing; Wikipedia would do potential victims of the alleged scam a favor by objectively documenting what the scam involves. Han-Kwang (t) 09:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Salting is not to be used as a pre-emptive measure. Han-Kwang (t) 10:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The article needs work, sure, but a plain redirect to Pyramid scheme is no solution. The RFS scheme appears to be wellknown (or should I say infamous?) enough to justify an article of its own, just like MMF and the Ponzi scheme.    SIS  12:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect with possible partial merger of content to pyramid scheme, which would probably tell anyone what they need to know about this scheme. After all, we're dealing with one of the oldest con games in the book, one that has been reinvented and rebranded thousands of times: every new one does not deserve a separate article absent some case for independent notability. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You should recommend to either delete it alltogether, or to redirect AND mention it in pyramid scheme. A redirect to an article that does not mention it is not one of the permitted uses per WP:R. Han-Kwang (t) 15:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep' There was already a conversation as to how to manage this problem on the article's talk page. Redirecting to an article that does not mention this term is not appropriate. I does not seem "obvious spam" to me, request for page protection to lock it in as a redirect was denied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2008 (UTC) The more I look at this the more unsure I am about the sources. Switching to Neutral see below Beeblebrox (talk) 23:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 20:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not assert notability using reliable, third-party sources. VG ☎ 20:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This extremely negative article needs some specific reliable sources. The various references in the previous version don't meet the test. DGG (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article in the current form doesn't contain any references to other pyramid schemes. It should be ok now. WH Coordinator (talk) 06:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article in its current form doesn't contain any references at all, as long as we ignore those stupid guidelines like WP:V, WP:RS, WP:N (who cares about those silly jargony WP acronyms anyway), the article is great. Maybe it should be featured. Reswobslc (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about now? WH Coordinator (talk) 23:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, all of the "sources" blatantly flunk WP:RS and WP:QS as they are all blog/forum postings or self-published "articles" on websites that publish any junk submitted by anybody. None of these are acceptable as reliable sources. Reswobslc (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be a little more specific on how they flunk WP:RS and WP:QS? WH Coordinator (talk) 08:35, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New York Times, Krasnaya Zvezda, Time Magazine = Reliable Sources. Joe Schmoe's Blog = Not a reliable source. Article on Print-N-Po$t.net that publishes anything from any Joe Blow = Not a reliable source. Posting on somebody's blog = Not a reliable source. Posting on some other wiki or forum = Not a reliable source. Even Wikipedia itself does not meet the bar for "reliable source" because it consists of user-posted content. Please read WP:V and WP:RS in detail. Reswobslc (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read both WP:RS and WP:QS, and am still having trouble equating it with the afd, could you bring a specific quote out, so we could analyze it, and see how it's relevant to the Reverse funnel system. WH Coordinator (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the references meet the criteria in WP:RS/WP:QS, or whether meeting/not meeting those criteria means that the article should be deleted? I think that the references are somewhat questionable if viewed by themselves, but taken together they do make a point, although a single article in the NYT would be better. I do believe that there are better references hidden among those 454,000 search results. Han-Kwang (t) 17:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well after the article gets deleted, if you can find a few of those "better" references, you could consider recreating the article. (However, chances are far more likely you will find a leprechaun or a pot of gold, or get struck by lightning; both of these occurrences would probably dramatically alter your life enough to keep you from wanting to promote or discuss pyramid schemes on Wikipedia.) Reswobslc (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, let's not loose the thread of the discussion. Reswobslc, you are suggesting that WP:RS/WP:QS warrant the AfD for this article, could you bring the exact quotes to support your assertion? WH Coordinator (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reswobslc, having a good point does not mean you can throw WP:CIVIL out the window.[9] Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, go blow me. Just kidding. I don't think I have been uncivil or a dick, though if you disagree, you're welcome to toss a template on my talk page. Use of sarcasm is not uncivil. Telling someone to "go blow me" is. Assuming they meant it. :) Reswobslc (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not constructive is all. It does not strengthen your argument, it makes it appear weaker and more mean-spirited. Nevertheless, the "sources" on this article are bunk, and the article's creator has been given ample time and explanation as to what the problem is. My vote is now Delete and salt the earth to prevent re-create without references. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2008 (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.