Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix scheme

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 keep. If editorial disputes continue, the proper method of resolution can be found under WP:DISPUTE. Arkyan  ^(talk) 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matrix scheme

This article has become an edit war. Well to say it's become an edit war would be to insinuate that it hasn't been one for well over a year. The article has *never* achieved any degree of neutrality, and at least one site (matrixwatch.org) actively tries to use the article to increase their exposure and thusly draw traffic to their site. The thing is so full of rhetoric and half-truths and accusations from both sides of the argument that it's just become untenable. Samoyed 04:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Notable marketing scheme being investigated by regulators in both UK and USA. Cited. Needs arbitration, but the topic is notable. Obvious edit war. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is the problem. It's NOT being investigated by regulators. There have been various snipets that have come out that one side of the argument tries to contort into "being investigated". Sadly, article HAS been through arbitration and still this edit war carries on - even amongst the parties that were involved in the arbitration. There will NEVER be a solution to this article, and for all intents and purposes the business model is no longer even really practiced on the internet. Heck, even the name the article was created under ("scheme") implies some form of conspiracy or illegal behavior in spite of the fact that there's (for some reason) absolutely no law against it. Samoyed 05:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An edit war is not a reason to delete the article when the subject is controversial. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable and adequately sourced. --Carnildo 05:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge with Ponzi scheme. It is notable, regardless of the current state of the article. Clarityfiend 05:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks notable and referenced. And incoming links. Shenme 06:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, deletion is not the way to resolve an edit war. Plenty of reliable sources are cited; notability is firmly established. An edit war, no matter how prolonged, is not a valid reason to delete a perfectly valid article. Krimpet (talk/review) 06:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. AfD is not a way to solve edit wars, it is a way to delete articles that should be deleted. read here. --Dennisthe2 06:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Primary reason suggested for deletion (Matrixwatch.org link) is not even linked in the current article. Arzel 15:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I feel that the article has changed out of all recognition, I feel the article itself is useful - if only to show in the history how the truth has been distorted! Ideally, I think that the article should return to the original mediated version from last year, as it currently fails to tell the whole truth. --Cybertrax 22:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. While AFD solves an edit war in this case, it also removes encyclopedic content. Seek assistance from administrators/mediators.--WaltCip 13:24, 11 April 2007 (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.