Talk:Kleeneze/Archives/2016
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Rodw in topic Notability
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Kleeneze. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Notability
It looks like this was tagged as being of questionable notability in April 2012. The tag was later removed by an editor who also added blatant spam to this talk page (since removed). reliable sources should be used to establish that this company meets notability guidelines. WP:ORG is a good introduction to those guidelines. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
- It's the biggest MLM in the UK, and therefore probably the UK's biggest scam, although attempting to rank it within a list of other scams would be entirely arbitrary. It was closely associated with the Farepak scandal, and EHR was co-located with the Farepak HQ, so perhaps it should remain for that reason. It is a fairly large and well-known company, and it has been trading/scamming for over 90 years, so that should be notable.
- I believe that the Wikipedia notability guidelines suggest that a company behaving immorally or illegally is not grounds for deletion, but I cannot cite where it says this. I have found another guideline (WP:ILLCON) suggesting a company often involved in illegal activity may be notable for that reason.
- Perhaps pending changes protection would be appropriate, to prevent vandalism. REH11 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- I think the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have added some references in an attempt to show whether it is notable or not and another editor has added "citation needed" tags for claims I can not find anything to support. Can anyone find any sources for these claims? In the light of the banner and guidelines do others think it should now be considered notable, and the banner removed, or should it be nominated at AfD?— Rod talk 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
- Not notable as far as I can see based on the 4 citations included in the article, none of which would appear to qualify for establishing notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH, and the DSA citation has an additional problem with WP:ORGIND. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've added some more references including a recent report in the Manchester Evening News so I have removed the banner.— Rod talk 18:00, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- Not notable as far as I can see based on the 4 citations included in the article, none of which would appear to qualify for establishing notability according to WP:CORPDEPTH, and the DSA citation has an additional problem with WP:ORGIND. Rhode Island Red (talk) 03:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
- I think the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I have added some references in an attempt to show whether it is notable or not and another editor has added "citation needed" tags for claims I can not find anything to support. Can anyone find any sources for these claims? In the light of the banner and guidelines do others think it should now be considered notable, and the banner removed, or should it be nominated at AfD?— Rod talk 16:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)