Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network TwentyOne

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. On the strength of the improvements so far; objections appear to have been addressed. Shimeru (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Network TwentyOne

Previous AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network 21

Network TwentyOne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Summary of !votes

Any omissions are accidental and emphasize the need for this summary; feel free to edit this list, but only discuss below

1. Delete / Will Beback / Withdrawing my "delete" !vote, due to the enormous improvements to the article from what it was when nominated
2. Strong Keep / Insider201283 / Working to improve the article and cull cruft sources
3. Delete / Shot info / per WP:CORP
4. Delete / Financeguy222 / per WP:CORP
5. Delete / Smerdis of Tlön / per WP:SPAM
6. Delete / BruceGrubb / per WP:CORP, WP:N, and WP:SPAM
7. Delete / Cirt / per WP:Vanispamcruftisement
8. Keep (or Merge) / Willscrlt / Adequate secondary sources now establish notability per WP:CORP and WP:N; claims of WP:SPAM not supported

Discussion

This business does not appear to meet WP:CORP. Most of the references are to blogs, press releases, and other non-independent sources. Some of the sources or proposed sources do not mention the organization by name, are merely about people related to the company, or make only minor mentions of it. The article is not based on reliable secondary sources. Every mention of it is in connection to Amway, and it could simply be mentioned in that article as one of several distributor support networks.   Will Beback  talk  18:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —  Will Beback  talk  18:52, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

While the article as currently written is poorly sourced, the topic itself DOES meet WP:CORP, as evidenced by the numerous independent RS sources I have collated for use so far (see User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references). The article had been little touched for a year until an edit war started a couple of weeks ago and it has been under protection the past week so I've been unable to make improvements. To be honest I'm a little hesistant to put the time in if it's going to be deleted! While the topic may be suited to a subsection of the Amway article my concern is that it will make that article unwieldy as there are numerous other independent support companies and affiliated distributor organisations that may be notable (eg Dexter Yager's Internet Services, Bill Britt, Schwarz Organisation and others). With international coverage in books, magazines, and academia it would seem clear that Network TwentyOne is notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, the article on Bill Britt, who runs a comparable network, has been deleted three times. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt 2, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Britt (2nd nomination). So it has been firmly established that that topic is not notable, pending new developments of course.   Will Beback  talk  19:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually the Britt network isn't really comparable, being primarily limited to India and the US and nowhere near as large, nevertheless as noted by some in the most recent afD it verges on notable. If someone wanted to make the effort to dig up sources it might be.([1][2][3]). I actually voted to delete it, but that was based primarily on the references being used on the article at the time and nobody seemed too interested in putting the work in to fixing it. It doesn't appear to have anything like the range of potential sources I've found so far for the N21 article though. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As suggested on the talk page of the last deletion of this article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Network 21, perhaps an article like "Amway motivational organizations" could cover Britt, N21, and the others you list above.   Will Beback  talk  21:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a possible optin, but that title doesn't work - it's (a) POV, having been coined by "critics" and implying all they do is "motivate", and (b) I don't think there's any RS sources that use that term. Indeed I'm not sure there's any RS sources at all that consider them "as a package" so to speak. I haven't read them with that in my mind though. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, the standard for notability is not "numerous independent RS sources", it is "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". 50 IMDB entries of being 3rd assistant carpenter on a movie doesn't establish notability. I've spot-checked Insider201283 extensive list, and all but one of the 8 I looked at were definitely either not "significant", "reliable", "secondary sources", or "independent". For example, one reference was an event listing for a public concert in Manila that was sponsored by the company; it was not a "significant" reference, and was almost certainly press release transcription. Another reference was to a doctoral thesis that contained one sentence about Network 21, as an example, and also included Network 21 in a table of major lines of sponsorship within Amway; it certainly was not "significant" and I'm pretty sure that theses are not "secondary sources", but are primary.

The one spot-checked "source" that couldn't be struck for trivially failing the notability standard on its face was Empire of Freedom, a book about Amway. If that book is independent of Amway, then it could be a decent reference for the Network 21 article. However, given that the book is a popular giveaway by Amway recruiters, I question "independent" and "reliable"; it appears to be a hagiography. On the other hand, I don't know for sure and am not going to take the time to find out definitively. Y'all have fun. Studerby (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that review. Regarding Empire of Freedom, ISBN 0761506756: I obtained a copy from the library. It's a small, thin book with large type. Its publisher, Prima Publishing, was founded by a successful Amway salesman, Ben Dominitz.[4] Of the citations that Insider lists on his page, several of them (pages 59, 101-103, 109, and 197) do not mention N21 by name and refer instead to various personnel who are presumably associated with it. While those indirect mentions would be acceptable to use as a source, they don't establish the notability of the entity. Of the direct mentions, about half simply mention N21 as being one of several similar networks. That mostly leaves just two passages, pages 6-8 (really just one page) and 147-148. As I said before, the pages don't have much text on them. In any case, there's no indication in the book of notability beyond the Amway world.   Will Beback  talk  22:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, you are incorrect. Page 59 is explicitly about the Dornans, who are earlier identified as the founders of Network 21, and how they got involved with Amway - clearly pertinent to the topic. pp101-103 refer to Paul & Linda Agus, Network 21 leaders in Indonesia, and on p102, contrary to your claims, explicitly mentions they moved to Indonesia to "build their business and spearhead the Network 21 organization's efforts in that country". Page 109 refers to Mitch & Diedre Sala's network and while it doesn't refer to Network 21 directly, the Sala's are identified as being involved with the creation of Network 21 on p.103. p.197 is about Robert Angkasa and the Indonesian launch and again, contrary to your claim, explicitly mentions Network 21 - "while managing inaugural activities in Indonesia for the Network 21 organization". He is also mentioned on p.103 as being involved in it's beginnings. Given that Network 21 is the people involved in it, I'm not quite sure why you think the people involved with it aren't pertinent to the article! As for the publisher, I wasn't aware of the founders history (assuming the SPS you have is correct), however it was founded in 1984 and by the time Empire of Freedom was published in 1997 it had over 130 employees, was publishing over 200 books a year, and was in partnership with Random House, a major publisher who later took them over completely [5][6]. There is no connection I'm aware of with Network 21, and perhaps more importantly the author, James W Robinson, is independent of both Network 21 and Amway and is an established author [7] --Insider201283 (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You're correct that Network 21 is mentioned once on page 102. However I don't think it can be said that pages 101-103 concern Network 21. As for passages that discuss people who belong to N21 without mentioning that network by name, those may help establish the notability of those people but they do not establish the notability of N21. In that example, the pages concern Paul and Linda Agus, who are not important enough to the topic to have been mentioned in the article.   Will Beback  talk  23:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Will, p101-103 is by definition about Network 21 if it is about Paul and Linda Agus - it's like arguing a 3 page article on Steve Jobs launching the iPod isn't about Apple since it only mentions Apple on one page! Furthermore, your claim about it not being notable because it's not already in the WP article is circular and disingenous - considering you know the article has been locked for editing while these sources have been getting collated for a rewrite. Oh, and the comment about type size is pretty silly - it's a larger, hard cover book. I just did one quick count and the first page I looked at had 297 words - not exactly "not much text" --Insider201283 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Jobs is the co-founder and CEO of Apple. What is the Aguses' role in N21? They do not appear to be mentioned anywhere on the N21 website.[8]   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You said you have the book Empire of Freedom, I suggest you read it. Skimming it is clearly not providing you with context and understanding of the topic. As it (and other sources) state, Paul & Linda Agus, along with others such as Robert Angkasa, lead Network 21 Indonesia and spearheaded the launch of operations there. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I can't find any mention of the Aguses on the N21 website. If they are the N21 equivalent of Apple Computer's Steve Jobs then I'd expect some information about them on the company's website. As I wrote above, N21 is only mention briefly in this book.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, read the book you claim to have. It explicitly states, on page 102, that Paul & Linda Agus moved to Indonesia to "spearhead the Network 21 organizations efforts in that country. pp102-103 are about that effort.--Insider201283 (talk) 01:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Studerby, the Manila news reference was not to a "public concert" and given it was a private event and there are no indications N21 has ever done a press release about their conferences (and to my knowledge and talking to employees, they don't) I'm not sure where you get the idea it was a press release from? Anyway to me, the clearly "significant" sources are Empire of Freedom, the Sun Daily South Africa article Life will never be the same on an Network 21 philanthropic activity in South Africa (mentions N21 by name, not Network of Caring btw), the Christian Businessman article (The Secret to My Success) on the Dornans and Network of Caring (the name for n21's philanthropic activities), the Maximise Your Strength book, which has at least a page or two on the N21 business strategies (p.192-193), the Indonesian business magazine Warta ekonomi: mingguan berita ekonomi & bisnis, Volume 9, Issues 9-16 which from the snippet google shows seems to cover that also and one would also assume that a published academic journal article part-titled "a case study of Amway and Network 21" would unarguably be "significant coverage". There is also the extensive World Vision coverage covered on the talk page. I posted it on RS/N for comment, there was none. --Insider201283 (talk) 23:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

We've already agreed that the Christian Businessman does not mention N21 even once. World Vision does not appear to be independent since the owners of N21 are its largest benefactors. For the purposes of establishing the notability of this company we need source which have significant coverage of it by name, not just ones which mention it in passing or in a directory or announcements of meetings, or ones which only discuss people or entities connected to it. I suggest we move further discussion of the sources to the AfD or article talk page to avoid clogging this page any more.   Will Beback  talk  00:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

The Christian Businessman mentions the Dornan's business expanding internationally, this is a synonym for "Network 21" as other sources such as Empire of Freedom make clear. The article also explicitly mentions Network of Caring which is Network 21, again as made clear by both the Network of Caring and Network 21 homepages.[9] [10] At this stage your effectively claiming, contrary to WP:NOTOR, that articles on an organisation don't count if they're using a different name for the organisation than the article title (or refer to one of the organisations major activities) and that pages about an organisations members activities as a part of that organisation don't count as being about the organisation - even when the source explictly states they are! Furthermore, the "owners of N21" are NOT World Visions largest benefactors, I've no idea where you got that idea from. Network of Caring - which describes the philanthropic activities of the network of N21 affiliated IBOs as a whole - is World Visions largest single corporate donation group. It's much as if Microsoft recommended all their employees donate to World Vision under an effort entitled "MicroCaring!" It's not Microsoft or Bill Gates donating, it's a network of individuals under a banner. Furthermore, Network of Caring's donations to World Vision may be the largest single group - but the total is a fraction of a percent of World Visions total revenues. I'd further note that you have also, more than once, mischaracterized or completely misstated the information in Empire of Freedom and I would ask that you take more care in the future. This discussion and information is about the sources and is relevant to this page. --Insider201283 (talk) 00:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand by my comments. Now let's let uninvolved editors give their views.   Will Beback  talk  01:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You stand by your comments that various pages in Empire of Freedom do not mention Network 21 when they clearly do? You stand by your claim that the founders of Network 21, Jim & Nancy Dornan, are World Visions largest benefactors? Do you have any evidence at all to support that claim? Do you stand by your claim that The Christian Businessman when talking about Network of Caring is not talking about Network 21, even though both Network of Caring and Network 21 say they are effectively one and the same? Will, you are actively misleading other editors. If anyone has queries about the Empire of Freedom book, please PM me and I will endeavour to provide scans of the relevant pages. --Insider201283 (talk) 01:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Many of the pages you refer to in E of F do not mention N21 by name. (BTW, I have the paperback version.) The Dornans, or N21, or some related entity are the largest benefactors of World Vision, per the article, so it is of dubious value as an independent source, and even if it weren't it's hard to imagine that World Vision has a reputation for being a reliable source. The Christian Businessman article is not about N21, which is the article we're talking about. If you'd like to write an article about the "Network of Caring" then we can discuss its notability. I suggest that further discussion of sources should be held on a talk page.   Will Beback  talk  02:31, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You have listed pages of Empire of Freedom claiming N21 was not named there when they were - though it may be because of differences in editions, I have a hard cover version. So far our page numbers seem to be matching reasonably well. However this is a ridiculous standard. The book makes clear it's talking about Network 21 on one page, just because the actual term doesn't appear on the next page does not mean it's suddenly talking about something else. Furthermore, AGAIN, the Christian Businessman article IS about Network 21. It explictly talks about the Dornan expanding their Amway business internationally with their associates. The dates, countries, and descriptions all match what other sources say about Network 21 - which they describe as the Dornan's business launching internationally! Similar it talks about Network of Caring, which other sources explictly start is an activity of Network 21. I again refer you to WP:NOTOR - Identifying synonymous terms, and collecting related information under a common heading is also part of writing an encyclopedia. Reliable sources do not always use consistent terminology, and it is sometimes necessary to determine when two sources are calling the same thing by different names. This does not require a third source to state this explicitly, as long as the conclusion is obvious from the context of the sources. Articles should follow the naming conventions in selecting the heading under which the combined material is presented.--Insider201283 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to mention re World Vision - as I've stated before I listed it on RS/N - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_60#World_Vision_as_an_RS where it received no commentary. As I pointed out there Google News has more than a dozen media references citing World Vision in the last month (march 2010) alone. Google scholar reports 58 occurrences of the phrases "according to World Vision" or "World Vision reports", including in many peer-reviewed papers. There are nearly 300 references that cite http://www.worldvision.org [20], again including many peer-reviewed papers. WP:RS states How accepted, high-quality reliable sources use a given source provides evidence, positive or negative, for its reliability and reputation. The more widespread and consistent this use is, the stronger the evidence. For example, widespread citation without comment for facts is evidence of a source's reputation and reliability for similar facts, while widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. So it shouldn't be hard at all to "imagine" World Vision has a reputation as a reliable source. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete: Per CORP. Sources are poor at best. Most references rely on OR to make the link between the source and the article topic. Shot info (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Just to note that Shot info has a history on this article and was "called" to this dispute by FG222[11]--Insider201283 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes pointing out the obvious to editwarriors is needed. Shot info (talk) 04:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It's disappointing (though not surprising) to find out the official Amway ties with the "Empire of Freedom" publisher. Of all the sources given, I thought that one might be reliable, especially if instead it also mentioned N21 in more than passing.

As creatively as they are relentlessly tried to be interpreted as otherwise, most of the new and old sources listed have already been discounted and I wont repeat why they are insufficient as a whole, as everyone else has made it clear.

Insider, referring back to your example of microsoft staff donating being a company donation....IBOs are by definition independent of N21 and Amway as a business are they not? Certainly not "staff". Anyway, semantics aside, no reliable independent sources seem to exist to back up either point of view.

The Christian Businessman article explicitly states NOC is a Dornan enterprise, not N21. That has been well established.

Insider you have intimate company knowledge, and "speak to employees", and give the article tonality of advertisement and non-neutrality. Multiple times you have referenced and quoted online sources that did not have the fact/figure cited in the referenced article at the time of writing, but shortly afterwards the source text would be updated to include the "fact" already "referenced" that was already in the article. It seems likely either you knew the official homepage was about to be updated to quote your text, or you updated the source page yourself. It's as if the official N21 and NOC homepages have been updated after the facr to suit the WP article (and your arguments/POV) not the other way around as it should be.

For example the Network of Caring official homepage stated at the time it was first included as a reference that it was "the Dornan's creation of Network of Caring", but was included in the N21 article as a reference that it was part of N21. When the point was put forward that the direct link between N21 and NOC was not clear (due to above quote) the source reference webpage itself was then updated to now state "Network of Caring is also the philanthropic arm of Network TwentyOne Inc.", your exact words from the article. Funny.

I know you deny it (as other people have called you out on it in the past), but I think you should own up to your true role in the organisation, your edits and interpretation of sources and other people are tilted way beyond making the article seem fair and unbiased. I doubt you will come clean, however your conflict of interest is still obvious.

• Delete: Per CORP. With all points made by others above, it seem valid to delete this article (again), and at this stage I would agree.

Financeguy222 (talk) 02:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

FG222 - I told you on the talk page that I had written to Network 21 and pointed out the NOC page wasn't clear. I then told you again when they had changed it. Now you want to make some conspiracy out of it? You're just as free to email them as I do, their email addresses are on their website. That's where I got them from! I'm not aware of ANY time I've made edits not supported by the supporting source, so I don't know what you're talking about there - unless it's (again) your continued insistence that NOC is not Network 21 when we have the NOC site saying it is, the N21 site saying it is, and World Vision saying it is. The Christian Business Man article does not explicitly state it is a "Dornan enterprise" but even if it did that is entirely consistent with every other source saying its an outreach of Network 21! As for not writing in a "neutral" tone, considering your history of wanting to insert numerous non-RS opinion pieces into the article, that's a bit rich. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen written by you anywhere/on talk that you wrote to them to make the change, or to acknowledge that they changed it. If you did write it, then it has been lost in the mess that is this article and associated talks/procedures. No conspiracy, but it says a lot that you know more about their company than they do, telling them what to say about themselves on their own websites, and you're getting edits made on their page too. There were other examples of the exact same thing happening for other facts/figures listed on the article page (that I did not explicitly draw attention to) that were referenced incorrectly, and then later changed in the source to match the wikipedia quote of the same source. Very interesting.

Yes I inserted references, in an attempt to counterbalance the overwhelmingly promotional tone of the article, and at the same time supply some of the only references that were independent. I can accept them not being accepted in the article. The difference being I don't stand to benefit either way how this business and associated entities are portrayed, whereas someone with a vested interest in these companies (which you have admitted is true, as "non-active" member of Amway if I recall correctly) very much so does.

Like I said, as obvious as it could appear that a member of N21/staff member was relentlessly editing the article overly in their favour, true or not, that's just how it comes across, and multiple people have said it already. Many thinking so doesnt make it true, and even if completely false still speaks volumes about ones perceived probable conflict of interest if that's the impression created on many. I see there is no point discussing this further with you, and you would never admit the extent of it anyway. It just disturbs me that WP has people like that around. Financeguy222 (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Just above "whats happens next" in the talk last week I mentioned they'd changed the site. [12] I can't find where I'd earlier said I'd emailed them though.

(2) Until you started inserting POV that had already been rejected and challenging other stuff which has been there for years, I'd done very little with this article except a little cleaning here and there and adding the "Philanthropy" section 4 years ago - how you can construe that as "relentless editing" is beyond me. Your edits have been stronger POV editing than mine - does that mean I should consider the possibility you're paid by a competitor? Amway critics have been accusing me of being an Amway of N21 employee for years. I've denied it enough times, even Amway came out and denied it. There seems to be this bizarre idea that anyone can criticise the company relentlessly, but anyone who supports it must be a paid agent! It's interesting this idea exists considering there have been multiple instances of Amway critics being discovered to have been paid by an Amway competitor (P&G) and there are multitudes of independent bodies that have praised Amway.[13]. So folk like you consider someone like Blakey, who was paid to give a bad report on Amway by P&G, is a perfectly acceptable source, but something like World Vision is biased because N21 members donate to them! Incredible. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Bringing on the drama already I see. This is painfully promotional in tone, with right curious italics:
  
  "Network TwentyOne, also known as Network 21, is an education, training, and support system for Independent Business Owners (IBOs) working with the Amway business. It refers both to the company supplying Professional Development Programs to IBOs and to the network of affiliated IBOs themselves."
  
  The general POV pervading the article is that you can get rich quick with Amway: In 1971 Jim Dornan was working as an aeronautical engineer and Nancy Dornan as a speech pathologist when they were introduced to the Amway business. After two years, at the age of 25, they were able to retire from their jobs, however soon afterwards their son Eric was born with severe birth defects. While they were able to focus on his care, after a year they realised they would need significantly more income to support him throughout his life, and over the next three years they rapidly built one of the largest Amway businesses in North America. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Huh? How are the italics curious? Putting industry jargon in italics the first time it's used is quite common usage. Indeed the Wikipedia Style Guide says to do exactly that [14]! The fact you, as an admin, think that following WP style guidelines is "curious" is curious in itself. As for the "you can get rich in Amway" tone? Are you serious? It's obviously relevant to the article and has two independent RS sources. It's just a fact behind the origin of the company. I only wrote than last night as part of the request for rewriting. How would you suggest we write it? --Insider201283 (talk) 16:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you object to including the historical motivations for founding a business as "promotional", I've rewritten that section. --Insider201283 (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment. The italics struck me as odd mostly because "Independent Business Operator" and "Professional Development Program" aren't really technical terms; they seem to be fairly self explanatory, even as Amway is using them. Please note also that you cannot create the illusion that there is any major dispute about deleting this article, which has already been deleted once before, simply by putting more text on the discussion page than anyone else. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok, we lose the italics then. As for previous deletions, from archive.org it appears there were no sources at all for the article[15], let alond RS ones, and it was clearly not up to standard. It did not even remotely resemble the current article, so your comparison is clearly not a valid one. --Insider201283 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

"there are multitudes of independent bodies that have praised Amway" referenced a link to your own personal website with an apparent list of "awards". Thanks, I havnt had such a good laugh in a long time.

Getting back to the article, the sources are getting worse now. Financeguy222 (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I attempted to improve the article somewhat The majority of the issues talked about have not been addressed, no need to repeat myself. New issues: Removed paid webwire press release, and IBOAI link. I believe that is not RS.

Before I alter any further I will discuss here. Regarding the n21guy.com references, the tone of the website is it's a personal POV blog (non RS), but Insider has said it is an official site. What evidence did you use to establish that? The site attempts to pass itself off as a personal blog, with multiple references to "my site" "i'm" etc.

The solvenian reference source states it is about "Network 21 aka Amway" thus supports the notability issue, that it is only notable to Amway, or is Amway? Financeguy222 (talk) 05:47, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've replaced the n21guy.com website because it is explicitly self-published. It was a convenience link to an article in "Achieve Magazine", which is published by the Independent Business Owners Association International (IBOAI). Jim Dornan, head of Network TwentyOne, is on the IBOAI Executive Committee.[16] So that's another source which appears to be non-independent.   Will Beback  talk  06:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

(1)Will - The n21guy.com is a Network 21 official blog. It's linked to from the n21corp.com website. It's only been used as a convenience link for the Achieve magazine, which is published by Amway, not Network 21. Jim Dornan is not on the executive board or any other board of Amway, and as per the Amway blog links in the "controversy" section it's clearly not simply some "fawning" relationship. An even further "removed" source would be better but it's being used for what should be an entirely non-controversial information that simply updated information in an older RS source (EOF). This is a perfectly acceptable source under WP:RS.

(2)FG222 - The AmwayWiki is an open wiki. It's "my site" as much as Wikipedia is Jimmy Wales site. The list of awards and recognitions links to many many independent RS sources. The fact you think because a website collates something that it makes the facts "laughable" says something about your POV on this topic. What "sources are getting worse" are you talking about? The sources I added in the update are I think all RS. Note also under WP:RS that info about an organisation from that organisation is perfectly acceptable in an article about that organisation, just the article should not primarily consist of such sources. This one does not. I think the only reason the IBOAI source was there was as just further evidence against the ridiculous claims that Network 21 and NOC were not related. --Insider201283 (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How did you establish the n21guy.com is a "Network 21 official blog"? Financeguy222 (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How about the fact it's linked to from the N21 home page [17], it lists "other n21 sites", which are all official N21 sites, the domain is registered by Network TwentyOne International[18], and the author reports he is an employee of Network 21 [19]. Not to mention it's obvious if you actually read the site. :-/ Neither here nor there anywhere since it's not being used as a source for anything and never has been. --Insider201283 (talk) 13:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:CORP or notability and seems to be promotional much in the same way the PearC article is; if it wasn't tangentially connected to a "big name" it wouldn't even be on the radar screen.--BruceGrubb (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

And yet another well known anti-MLM wikipedian joins the fray. What a surprise. I note the PearC article has one reference, to the article topics website, and two external links. The Network TwentyOne article currently uses eleven completely independent RS sources as well as a number of significant other 3rd part sources such as World Vision. Having said that, a quick searcu shows that PearC is clearly notable as well [20], though the article obviously needs work.

"eleven completely independent RS sources?" I don't know how you came to that figure. 11? Also, It wouldnt suprise me if Jim Dornan or an Amway exec was on the board of the Grand Rapids Press, after all it is a very small town. Financeguy222 (talk) 15:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) The Grand Rapids Press article is reporting on a government lawsuit against Amway & Network 21

(2) Grand Rapids, Michigan has a population approaching 800,000 people - you call that "a very small town"?

(3) Jim Dornan and Network TwentyOne are headquartered in Atlanta, Georgia, nowhere near Grand Rapids. Really FG222, your biased POV on this article is quite bizarre.

(4) I will answer re the 11 sources in a separate section below. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283's over pro-MLM stance to the point of WP:COI can be seen in [Talk:Pyramid_scheme#The_Connection_to_MLMs_is_relevant] where sources from Wiley, Sage, Greenwood Press, and Oxford University Press are challenged with a mixture of earlier sources from these publishers, WP:OR, and WP:SYN as well as the claim over at Talk:Multi-level_marketing that "books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes" when the company can be easily be shown not only be owned by the author but that that very same author is also the Secretary, Treasurer, and Director of Cashflow. The very idea that a 1996 Wiley book can challenge 2003 and 2009 Wiley books, a 1991 Sage book can challenge a 2005 Sage book, or a 2005 Praeger Publishers book (with no recommendations presented by the publisher) can challenge a 2007 Greenwood book the publisher uses recommendations from American Reference Books Annual, School Library Journal, Reference Books Bulletin, Kirkus Reviews, Reference & Research Book News, and Library Journal only further boggles the mind. I should mention the Bizon Computers article had even more references and links (as seen in its Russian counterpart--[[21]] and it was removed because it wasn't notable (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Bizon_Computers).--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, this is not the place to discuss your view that a few non-descript authors are greater authorities on the law regarding pyramid schemes than the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounties, UK Government, EU Parliament, Australia government etc. --Insider201283 (talk) 17:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Given this is a typical misrepresentation of the fact this is the place for this point. Saying "illegal pyramid scheme" as the FTC, Royal Canadian Mounted Police ("For the purpose of Section 206(1)(e) of the Criminal Code a pyramid scheme is illegal when a person participating in the scheme becomes entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others." (ie a pyramid scheme is legal when person participating in the scheme does not become entitled to receive more money than they invested in the scheme by reason of recruiting others) espessly acknowledges there are legal pyramid schemes. In fact, UK government admits in the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (Section 50) that the Government was "considering legal action against the schemes and options to close legal loopholes related to pyramid schemes."--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:50, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete I've added this and then struck it out to make it clear that I'm withdrawing my "delete" !vote, due to the enormous improvements to the article from what it was when nominated.   Will Beback  talk  09:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Current Status of the Network TwentyOne article

The Network 21 article had been locked until shortly before this AfD was placed. As per Talk:Network_TwentyOne I was working on collating sources and a rewrite. Substantial changes to the article have been made since the AfD was posted and I think it's iumportant to outline them. It's also important to note that so far this AfD has had only "vote" from a non-involved editor.

The following wholly independent 3rd Party sources are used in the article -

• Robinson, James W. (1997). Empire of Freedom: The Amway Story and What It Means to You.
• Saxena, Rajan (2005). Marketing Management
• Gorenjski Glas, Issue 52, 1997, p.21
• The Christian Businessman, May 1998, pp28-34
• Manila Standard,19 Sep 1997, p.18
• The Muskegon Chronicle (Grand Rapids).
• Daily Sun (South Africa),Monday 30 July 2007, p.12
• Money.pl. December 10, 2001
• Reporters without Borders - Poland Annual Report 2004
• The Grand Rapids Press (Grand Rapids)

(Note to FinanceGuy222 - the above were the sources used when I made the comment above about 11 sources. My apologies, it was 10 not 11, I originally included Blaze Sports in that count, but they're not "wholly independent" as they partner with the Fernando Foundation.)

• Priosaksono, Aribowo; Sembel, Roy (2003). Maximise your strength. Elex Media Komputindo. pp. 192-193
• Sarosa, Pietra (2005). Becoming young entrepreneur: dream big, start small, act now!. Elex Media Komputindo. p. 23
• Warta ekonomi: mingguan berita ekonomi & bisnis: 30. 1997.
• Groß, Claudia (2008). Multi-level-marketing: Identität und Ideologie im Network-marketing. Gabler Wissenschaftsverlage. pp. 194,228,268
• Harefa, Andrias (2000). berwirausaha dari nol. Gramedia Pustaka Utama. pp. 33-35

That's fifteen wholly independent 3rd party WP:RS, WP:V sources currently used in the article.

Then you have other 3rd party sources that are not completely independent of Network TwentyOne but have some connection of some sort, but are still cleary 3rd party and reliable for the non-controversial information they are being used as sources for -

* Amway - clearly a reliable source to talk about Dornan's achievements as an Amway IBO

* World Vision - clearly a reliable source to talk about their donors

* Free Wheelchair Mission - as above

* Reach for a Dream - clearly a reliable source to talk about their sponsors

* Blaze Sports - has partnered with the Fernando Foundation for Power Soccer

In addition, this discussion is about Notability. Apart from the significant coverage in Empire of Freedom, Network TwentyOne has also been the subject of a case study published in a peer-reviewed journal. Note that WP:CORP states - Notability requires only that these necessary sources exist, not that the sources have already been named in the article..

* ENERAPAN SISTEM PENGHARGAAN DAN SANKSI YANG MENIMBULKAN PENGENDALIAN INTER-ORGANISASI: STUD1 KASUS PADA AMWAY CORPORATION-NETWORK 21, JATI (Jurnal Akuntansi dan Teknologi Informasi) Berkala Hasil Penelitian, Gagasan Konseptual, Kajian, dan Terapan, Vol 2, No 1 (2004)[22]

If the significant coverage of a peer-reviewed published case study and some 10+ pages of coverage in a book is not enough to convince of notability, WP:CORP also states If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. We have more than thirty separate independent sources see User:Insider201283/Network_21_-_references

WP:CORP also states Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. We currently have verifiable media sources mentioning Network TwentyOne from at least seven countries -

• United States
• Poland
• Australia
• Indonesia
• Phillipines
• Denmark
• South Africa

Finally, WP:NOTE also says it is important to consider not only whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. The sources listed above are only those readily findable through the internet. I'm aware that the dispute over the film Welcome to Life received significant coverage in Poland in the late 1990s. In addition later this year a new book about Amway is being published which I believe will cover Network 21 [23]. So -

• We have significant coverage in reliable 3rd party sources
• We have multiple independent sources
• We have evidence of international media attention

WP:CORP has clearly been satisfied. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again Insider201283 leaves out key points of information. First, WP:CORP spells out what does not qualify:

"An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it." This throws out the "United Kingdom investigates Amway" July 01, 2007 The Muskegon Chronicle reference; the only reason Network TwentyOne got mention was it was being sued with Amway.

"Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.". Saxena is a prime example of this as "Network 21" is only mentioned once and in passing.

"Quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources do not count as substantial coverage unless the organization itself is also a major subject of the story." This sums up The Christian Businessman source which is basically an article on Dornan and the only Network it talks about is a "Network of Caring".

"The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." This drop kicks the Manila Standard, Daily Sun (South Africa), Grand Rapids Press, Gorenjski Glas, and all the other local "references" into the iffy pile.

Second, there is Insider201283's annoying habit of not giving you all the information you need on a source. Articles normally have titles but his The Christian Businessman reference doesn't making it harder to find.

Finally, some of these publishers are iffy. I pointed out in [Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2] that Prima Publishing had possible reliable problems and now thanks to Will Beback we find out it founded by a guy from Amway that confirms that it is on the very iffy list.

If Insider201283 has to go to such obscure articles as "Amway" wygrał z Dederką" rather than the English version of Money it just goes to prove what the consensus here says already--this company simply does not meet the WP:COMP guidelines.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

(1) Bruce, "notability" is not limited to the United States or english speaking world, especially when talking about an organisation which is primarily notable outside of the english speaking world. Money.pl and Gorenjski Glas are national media in Poland with significant circulation. South Africa's Daily Sun is a national newspaper with the largest circulation of that country. There are also an unused sourced from the national magazine such as Business Review Weekly in Australia and the two national Indonesian news magazines.

(2) Network 21 was sued separately to Amway and if one looks at the case and judgement you'll discover it was the other way around - Amway was sued because of it's association with distributor groups misrepresenting Amway. While the case against N21 was dropped, BrittWorldWide voluntarily wound themselves up and Amway kicked out another group that BERR was unable to sue as they were not incorporated and outside their jurisdiction.

(3) The Saxena mention may be incidental but is used for no more than confirmation of Network 21 operating in India and the author considered it worth noting. They did not note other distributor training organisations that operate with Amway in India.

(4) As already noted, at the time Empire of Freedom was published, Prima was a major publishing house with over 100 staff and partnered with Random House, whom have since absorbed them. It's interesting to note your POV that an entire publishing house with thousands of publications should be considered unreliable because the publishing companies founder, not the books author, and a decade before the book in question was published, was (according to a blog!) an Amway representative - something tens of millions of people have been - yet elsewhere on Wikipedia you fight vehemently to have works critical of MLM written by ex-members of MLMs to be considered a reliable sources, even when self-published! You may want to consider some introspection on that.

(5) Thanks for pointing out the incomplete cite to The Christian Businessman, I have corrected it. The article is a significant front cover article on the founder of Network 21 and talks quite extensively about the start of his Amway business and launching internationally in partnership with his business associates. This is clearly about Network 21 and WP:NOTOR.

--Insider201283 (talk) 09:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283 there are several points here:

(1) Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources is quite clear on the use of Non-English sources for this wikipedia: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material." Show me the policy or guideline that expressly and directly states that non-English sources help establish notability rather than Verifiability; as far as I can tell there isn't one. Even when using foreign sources in the Vampires article that supported a certain point I made sure the point was also supported by English sources that came from a University Press book as well as the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

2)is this verifiable by independent national English sources or is this of the same cut of cloth that your claim that Cruz was not peer reviewed came from?

3) Only shows Network 21 existed not that it is notable which is what this AfD is about.

4) as I said before Prima Publishing better known through their Prima games division is part of the Random House Information Group. We are using a game manual publisher as a RS on MLM who is owned by a printing company that is all over freaking map in terms of meeting WP:RS guidelines? You have GOT to be kidding! Never mind you stated "As I've already pointed out to you, books published by, for example, Cashflow are NOT considered SPS as they have editorial staff and processes, but that doesn't really matter as (again, as I've already told you but you conveniently keep ignoring), the book has also been by TechPress". But TechPress [24] by their own admission "played a key role in the global success of the Rich Dad brand in coordinating international rights for the Rich Dad series of books (over 26 million copies sold worldwide)." Great, they helped make s guy who admits to using his cat as a business partner as a contract dodge and whose advice John T. Reed (whose views on real estate gurus like Kiyosaki and real estate investment in general have appeared in such reliable publishers as MSN Money, CNN Money, and even the New York Times) says is at best unethical if not outright illegal famous. Clearly they might as well be self published and are therefore useless as Prima.

4) Class in America H-P by Robert E. Weir (2007) by Greenwood ("Publisher of reference titles, academic and general interest books, and textbooks." recommended by the likes American Reference Books Annual, School Library Journal, Reference Books Bulletin, Kirkus Reviews, Reference & Research Book News, and Library Journal has two of its three recommended reading titles Carrol's online Skeptic Dictionary and Fitzpatrick's False Profits book. So here we have a book recommended for college and university libraries by anybody who is anybody, published by a publisher of reference titles, referring to one of these "works critical of MLM written by ex-members of MLMs" as recommended reading and you are claiming that this is not enough to denote Fitzpatrick at being an expert in this field? ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING?!? As for Scheibeler that was from Inter press service dated Jan 28, 2009 which you tried to counter with a Religion Dispatches piece dated February 11, 2009 or nearly two weeks later than the article cited Talk:Multi-level_marketing/Archive_2#Multitude_of_self-published_source. The Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Quoting_an_RS_source_citing_non-RS_sources and the related Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_58#Times_identified_as_.22unreliable.22 has to biggest insanity I have seen Wikipedia in a long time thought, can at least give Insider201283 credit in not using a blog in the challenge of the Times as . dave souza did. At least when I was using Taylor and FitzPatrick I had a whole list of reliable sources (like the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Journal of Business Ethics, American Board of Sport Psychology to back up the ideas of them being expert in the relevant field.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, again this is not the place for your anti-MLM crusade. Just to be clear on your relevant point - are you suggesting Wikipedia should only consider english language sources in regard to notability?--Insider201283 (talk) 10:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Non-english sources are perfectly capable of establishing notability. While it is the english wikipedia, that is only relevant to the language that it is written in. not the topics covered or where the sources come from. This is a completely irrelevant argument and shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, guidelines and existing consensus.--Crossmr (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Insider201283, It is not a crusade to point out COI issues that two other editors have also pointed out regarding Amway and Amway related articles and there is evidence of similar issues in the talk pages of the MLM and Pyramid Scheme articles. Crossmr, I would like to point out that Wikipedia:Verifiability supersedes Wikipedia:Notability and the former expressly states "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be used in preference to non-English ones, except where no English source of equal quality can be found that contains the relevant material". Occam's Razor suggests the very simple reason that "no English source of equal quality can be found" is that Wikipedia:Notability's provision of "On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability" applies and that this article is clearly headed for deletion (four deletes and even the comment below can't recommend keeping this article ) "shows a fundamental lack of understanding of wikipedia policies, guidelines and existing consensus."--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment based on the media and description of academic sources, I wouldn't recommend keeping this article. However the description of the book/magazie sources is much more interesting and seems to indicate actual notability. Unfortunately I don't have access to them to. Specifically one seems to have several pages on it and there is a documentary that seems to have been made about it. Particular attention to these sources should be paid to by the closing admin and properly evaluated.--Crossmr (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. Why wouldn't you consider an academic case study in a peer-reviewed journal to be indicative of notability? Also as you note and I neglected to consider, the award winning and controversial Polish documentary Welcome to Life, about which there was much Polish news media discussion is about Network 21 and Amway launching in Poland - clearly notable. --Insider201283 (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's four more polish news sources about Welcome to Life. Note that these are all recent articles talking about something that happened a decade ago. As you can imagine, there was substantially more coverage at the time, however polish news sources from that time are not available online. [25][26][27][28] --Insider201283 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Found an easily accessible copy of the first 10 minutes of Witajcie W życiu (Welcome to Life) [29] As you can see N21 is featured prominently, before even the titles are shown. --Insider201283 (talk) 18:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this a notable documentary? Who published it? Was it created wholly independent of Amway (amway does tend to fund and create a lot of these things)? Did it win any awards?--Crossmr (talk) 00:49, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

(1)As already noted Amway and Network 21 successfully sued the producers, so it's not likely to be by them is it? :-) It was by well known Polish film-maker Henry Dederko[30]. The film has it's own entry on Polish Wikipedia[31] and has been the subject of much media attention, both at the time and in the years since.

(2)Again, as already noted, yes it won awards, including Grand Prix “White Cobra” and Award of President of Polish Public TV Company during 8th Media Festival[32]

(3)To the best of my knowledge Amway (and I've spent a decade trying to dig up everything ever done about Amway) has never funded or created a documentary about itself, so I'm not sure where you get your (mis)information about that?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:08, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

1) As Russianmac shows just because it is notable in one wikipedia doesn't mean it is notable here.

2)I hate it when a source only provides partial information and you have to hunt for the rest. For the record the Media Festival “A Man in Danger” is organized by the Museum of Cinematography in Łódź and so has academic (ie museum) professionals backing it and therefore is a reliable source and establishes notability for the film per the example of Super Size Me. However as Prelude to War and The Battle of Russia winning the Academy award as Documentary Features of 1942 and 1943 show an award doesn't not always guarantee reliable or accuracy of content. Even by the standards of 1943 the idea of calling the Russians "a free people" under Stalin was boardline ridiculous.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, you've made your position clear, there's no need to debate it further unless you have new information. Welcome to life is a clear slam dunk for notability of this article. --Insider201283 (talk) 11:42, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Delete. Spam, advertising, COI, press releases, promotional in nature, basically just existing as Wikipedia:Vanispamcruftisement. -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

These concerns seem separate to notability. Could you elaborate with some specifics so the article can be improved, or even better contribute by improving it yourself?--Insider201283 (talk) 07:12, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've made some further changes that hopefully address your concerns. There is now not a single statement sourced from a press release or other non independent source. Also reworded a few things that might have been considered promotional in tone. --Insider201283 (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I am still seeing a bunch of less than independent sources. -- Cirt (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

There are currently 31 sources listed, one used 5 separate times, leaving 27 different sources. Three of these 27 sources are N21 sources, and they simply provide updated info on sources supported elsewhere. 24 are third party sources, though five are independent charities reporting on N21 support for them. Organisational sources are allowed sources for information about the organisation itself, yet I've even removed all statements not supported elsewher in order to try and satisfy concerns expressed here. Unless I've missed one AFAIK there is not a single statement in the article not supported by a 3rd party source. That well exceeds Wikipedia standards for an article of this nature. This article has been completely rewritten in the past two weeks. If you believe an article about an organisation should be deleted because the organisation itself is used as a source to update a few facts and figures then virtually every article on corps and organisations is due for deletion. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted every reference relating to Network 21. It required some minor changes to the text that makes the artcile less accurate. Every single source is now 3rd party. I must admit I'm currently struggling with WP:AGF. --Insider201283 (talk) 19:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep or Merge — I am an uninvolved editor when it comes to this article. I was involved in a previous mediation between Will Beback and Insider201283 over an Amway-related topic, so I have some familiarity with the subject matter. Insider requested that I look here impartially to see what I thought about the situation. Here are my thoughts:

• When I first looked at the article, I was amazed that it was even being considered for deletion. There are very few short articles in the entire encyclopedia that are as fully sourced. You can hardly read a full sentence without getting hit with a footnote reference (which I actually find highly annoying while reading articles, but that's the way that Wikipedia encourages editors to do things). So, obviously the number of references is not at issue here.
• WP:CORP is the main reason that was listed for deletion of the article.
  • The primary criteria of WP:CORP states "[An]… organization… is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources." We have established that the article has such coverage. (Don't complain about the quality of them… that's next.)
  • "Such sources must be reliable…" Several people above have demonstrated that several of the sources listed are reliable enough to satisfy this part of the requirement.
  • "and independent of the subject." Here's where the primary disagreement appears to be found. What is an independent source? Is it a source that has absolutely no involvement with Amway, any of its IBOs, any of its IBO support/marketing networks? No. That's way too high of a standard, and it is not what the guidelines state anyway. Consider substituting "Amway" with "Microsoft" or "General Mills", and you can see how nearly impossible it would be to find someone that uninvolved. So, let's consider WP:COI as a source for determining who might be independent (i.e., who would not have a conflict of interest if they were writing the article directly). Note that I have not read the articles, but am summarizing based on above comments from people who have.
    • Not oneself — None of the articles seem to have been written by anyone in Network 21 (Amway is a closely-related third party to N21, so even if Amway wrote an article, it wouldn't be "self" written)
    • "receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia i.e., to write an article about N21 as a representative of an organization" —While N21 may be World Vision's top financial donor, is World Vision writing biased things about N21 as a result or paying someone else to do so? Given that the organization was founded in 1950 and it's mission statement is "to follow our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in working with the poor and oppressed to promote human transformation, seek justice and bear witness to the good news of the Kingdom of God", it doesn't sound like they are the kind of organization that goes around talking up its donors because of a hefty check. I've seen some of their marketing materials, and it has never focused on the donors, but on the work that they do and the work that needs doing. Therefore, I see this as likely a valid (i.e., uninterested) reference and therefore usable.
    • "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing" — While World Vision itself might appreciate more donations if they grease the palms of their donors, the person who wrote the article is unlikely to receive benefits from it. Unless there was some sort of back room deal made (seems highly unlikely unless someone can find evidence to back that claim), it seems that at most that N21 came to the attention of World Vision because of its donations, thus World Vision may have written about it, and might not have otherwise. I sincerely doubt that the donations blinded World Vision into writing inaccurate materials unfairly favoring N21 just on the off chance that they might receive more money at some point in the future.
    • The other articles mentioned do not seem to be affected even by this pale shadow of monetary interest.
    • "involved in a court case, or close to one of the litigants" — The Polish article might fall into this area if the author was directly involved in the issues. If it is simply a report on the proceedings or outcomes, then it is fine. In fact, it's better than fine, because it helps keep the article WP:NPOV.
    • As to the "autobiography", "self-promotion", and "promotional" criteria, it's difficult to judge. On the surface, none of the sources seem to be "official" N21 sites or written by N21 members (is it a membership organization?), or a marketing association. The publisher of the book who was in the company may have been influenced positively enough by his experiences to publish the book, but he wasn't the author, so I don't see any issue there. The fact that the "book is a popular giveaway by Amway recruiters" is not damning; "recruiters" (negative point of view slipping in?) are likely to use any third-party reference that paints them positively, because it helps boost their image and credibility. We use the same criteria here. If someone can show direct relationships between N21 and any of the sources, that might change my view.
    • "Activities regarded by insiders as simply 'getting the word out' may appear promotional or propagandistic to the outside world. If you edit articles while involved with organizations that engage in advocacy in that area, you may have a conflict of interest." — It doesn't sound like any of the sources are doing this, except possibly the event announcement. Otherwise, the rest sound ok.
    • "[COI] is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization." — So, if N21 wrote something about Amway, or Amway wrote something about N21, there could be a conflict of interest. However, I'm sure that Amway has a very well-paid legal team that ensures that anything they say about N21 is honest (though it might be slanted depending on how Amway feels about N21), or at least not libelous. Hopefully N21 operates the same way. But I don't recall any of the references being made by Amway about N21. If there are, they might be suspect. However, if an Amway source is a reference to an official policy (IBOs may participate in approved outside organizations, and N21 is approved) or list of approved organizations, then that would be fine. In fact, I would consider a reference like that to be very helpful in establishing notability IF Amway listed N21 by name.
  • "A single independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." and "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability." — No problem there. We have probably at least 3 WP:RS (and probably many more). While one reliable source is not enough, there is no minimum limit. We are to use common sense (which is not as common as many believe) to decide if the available sources are strong enough to support the article and indicate if even more sources are likely. As I mentioned above, this article is better sourced than most of its size, so I think it clearly meets that requirement, too.
  • "Evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability." —As mentioned above, the sources are from several nations and some of the sources themselves are multinational (e.g., World Vision).
• WP:N was also mentioned by someone. So let's look a little more closely at one part that seems problematic:
  • "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." —This mostly seems to be an issue with the previously mentioned book. I have no desire to run down to the library to check out the book (this AfD would probably be over by then anyway), so I am going to do a little reading between the lines as to what was said above. Those who have read the book are welcome to correct any misconceptions. It appears that Insider is citing passages of the book that he feels relate directly to N21, but Will Beback states that most of the passages refer to individuals, not the organization. Insider states that, in this case, the people and the organization are synonymous with each other. I think Insider also said that the organization name is mentioned along with the people on earlier pages, so as far as the book is concerned, they are synonyms. This concerns me a bit because:
    • WP:CORP states, "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. If the organization itself did not receive notice, then the organization is not notable. For example, if a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not inherit notability from its owner." — Is that what is happening in this case? Is the book's author telling charming stories about the founders of N21, and making the assumption that N21 is likewise charming and important (inheriting the founder's notability)? Or is it more like the case used to be where "Bill Gates" and "Microsoft" were often used as synonyms for each other back when Gates ran the company? If the executive of an organization tightly manages it, the two can often be difficult to separate. So, for those who have read the book, how is the author treating this case?
• Looking back over my thoughts, I do not see any red flags that should result in deletion of this article. Does it need some more work? Yeah, most articles do. Is it off to a good start? Definitely. Is it well sourced? It certainly is better than most and seems to establish notability per WP:N, even conisering the more stringent [[WP:CORP] guidelines. Have any of the reasons above given me cause to think the article is worth deleting? No, not particularly.
• I said that I would support keeping the article or merging it. There do seem to be a number of these types of organizations. It might be a great idea for someone to write an article that generally defines (in neutral terms) what these organizations do, how they are established, managed, authorized, etc. Then, give specific examples, starting with the best documented and sourced organizations (this seems to be a good one). The fewer the references, the less article space they receive. There are problems with this strategy, however:
  • Such an article is highly unlikely to survive long enough to get it off the ground. The overview, by nature, is unlikely to have enough secondary sources to survive a prod or AfD. Those will come as the article develops. The initial sources will likely be primary (Amway's definitions and rules about them, and some of the organizations themselves and their "about us" type of copy). As soon as the text of this article (or a similar one) gets added to it, cries of WP:CORP will have it right back at AfD claiming too many primary sources and not enough secondaries.
  • I can also envision a lot of finger-pointing and "my organization is better than yours" type of POV statements being made within the article. While that's not a reason to not write the article, it just means that edit wars will be likely, and that tends to bring more attention to the article, and that can increase the first problem I mentioned.
• So, I propose that this article remain. I would like to see it improved, with more third-party sources found. But that's just something that goes for most articles. Then, if Insider wants to take this one, develop the overview article I described. Merge the text from this article into it. If an admin will restore the best written version of the Bill Brit article to his user space, he can add that in. And then if he can find a third similar organization (with RS) to add to the article, it should be able to withstand AfD scrutiny. Replace the text of this article with the new text and move it to a new neutral article name and create redirects to the new article from the names of the other mentioned organizations.
• The result would be a significantly improved article, we would have a place for any such future articles to be consolidated (i.e., any other similar organizations that aren't quite notable enough to stand on their own as a separate article, but do have enough to justify a section within the larger article), and Wikipedia would be improved by having broader coverage of this topic.
• Wishful thinking aside, with regard to this particular AfD, I do not find that anyone has made a compelling case for deletion. There are some issues, but not enough to override the fact that the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, and should not be deleted because some people are applying an unusually high standard of qualification to sources that in most articles would be considered more than adequate. That's my unbiased and hopefully helpful view of the matter. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 01:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

For the WP:CORP arguments- "Not oneself" - the World Vision article clearly is written by Network of Caring.

"receiving monetary or other benefits or considerations to edit Wikipedia" and "you expect to derive monetary or other benefits or considerations from editing Wikipedia; for example, by being an owner, officer, or other stakeholder of a company or other organization about which you are writing"

Whilst people have assumed editor Insider201283 works for Amway/N21 PR team, however likely, not yet proven, but he has only openly admitted that he is a member of such organisations, a "non-active" one if I quote him correctly, and that he runs a substantial amount of pro Amway websites, (enough to have previously been compared by someone as a full time job ;) ) The member admission certainly qualifies him as a stakeholder in the organisation about which he is writing.

For the articles Significant coverage issues, Originally many (some fixed, some still do) of the citations/references also pointed specifically to individuals or businesses related to people involved in N21, not n21 itself.

As you mentioned Willscrlt, Empire of Freedom has been noted as referring to inviduals.

The Welcome to life! movie only appears to mention N21 briefly in passing, although my Polish is not at all fluent enough to confirm exact details.

Judging a company (ie world vision) on their mission statement/motto, is not the best way to verify their integrity. ie Enron's "Respect, Integrity, Communication and Excellence." World Vision's president is one of the highest paid charity leaders in the world. I'm not arguing their business ethics, just that they can not possibly be completely independent from donating parties.

The WV article clearly appears to be written by NOC/N21(for those who assume they are legally one and the same), it states "We in Network of Caring thank you...." for "your support", and refers to WV in the third person. The whole ref appears to be an official PR letter out to NOC IBOs, also supporting the notability issue that it is separate from N21, and states that "Network of Caring child sponsors, made up of thousands of IBOs" (independent business owners, independent directly of N21 company itself).

Further argument for individual article notability/merging: The Reporters sans fronteirs ref calls Network 21 "Amway’s PR subsidiary", and is the only reference to N21 in the whole article. The slovenian article reference calls network 21 "Amway's alias". Financeguy222 (talk) 08:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Funny. I thought that this was a discussion about whether the subject of the article is notable — not an inquiry of the people participating in the discussion. Right now I don't care if Insider is the president of Amway or the president of their biggest competitor. Also, it does not matter if N21 is or is not the PR arm of Amway, because WP:CORP doesn't require it to be fully independent. From my limited understanding of N21 and all the other organizations like it, they are independent, but approved and possibly endorsed by Amway. In other words, they have a symbiotic relationship, because both benefit from each other. But that's not the point of the discussion.

The important question is whether N21 is notable or not. To determine that, we need to focus on the central question of whether there are adequate secondary sources available that discuss N21 in a meaningful way. So, are there at least two such sources available? (Two being the bare minimum to qualify per WP:CORP.) If not, then merge or delete. If so, then given the number of other sources, albeit less clear-cut, I would say that notability is satisfied. It really should be that simple if people would focus on the point of this discussion and stop getting sidetracked by pro- and anti- arguments about the companies, organizations, and alleged members thereof who might or might not be participating here. —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 11:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but my points directly address your points that vote in support of notability, and find they are flawed. If that's "funny", and sidetracking, I agree, but they are said to support the AfD issue.

My other points support notability issues directly, which have not been properly addressed yet. Financeguy222 (talk) 13:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: I just went to the so-called World Vision source. I agree that it is not really a secondary source, but rather a primary source (part of a series of pages from the charitable arm of N21) apparently hosted on World Vision's Web server. It makes a fine primary source, but does little to nothing to establish notability outside of their own words.

A quick Internet search found lots of results, but mostly either pro- or anti- Amway sites (not going to help much in this discussion), blogs and other wikis (disallowed under WP:RS, copies of the en.wiki article (no help at all), and so on.

However, I did find one that clearly seems to establish notability (though I did not listen to the podcast): CFO Magazine provides an archive of "…a case study from John Scott, CFO of Network TwentyOne International, a global company providing turnkey training solutions. He'll discuss how his company overcame the challenges of traditional methods and adopted this new generation of technology to automate and improve his processes." Right off the bat, a "global company" that attracts the attention of CFO Magazine seems pretty notable to me.

Financeguy, I did not mean to ignore your points. I don't know enough about the other sources. I don't speak any Polish, I do not have the books, and so on. I simply can't address your points. I think that Insider already did, but you found his response lacking, just as you found my analysis lacking. We are all suffering for a deplorable lack of adequate responses it seems. :-) —Willscrlt ( “Talk” ) 14:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting CFO source. How they heck did you narrow down a search to find that one? I'd note we already have a peer reviewed journal article case study [33], however my "opponents" above refuse to even acknowledge it's existence in their comments. As for the Polish documentary, I have a copy and my fiancee is half polish and is fluent. Even without understanding Polish the number of times "network 21" or the N21 logo appears on the screen makes it pretty obvious! That was the case even in the first 10 minutes of the film, a link to which I provided earlier. --Insider201283 (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

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.