Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonaVie (2nd nomination)

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. Canley (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MonaVie[edit]

Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MonaVie, this is a different article and is not blatant spam as the old one was, but it still lacks, to my view, credible evidence of non-trivial independent coverage in reliable sources. What sources we have are anything but neutral, in the main. Guy (Help!) 14:12, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Here TOO. I dont see a problem with keeping the article.. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.231.14.195 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I don't have much to add to what Guy's already written. --A. B. ^(talk) 15:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Perhaps "notorious" is a better term than "notable" to describe this company, but it has surely received masses of coverage. It scores one tenth the Google hits of Amway but it is still a sizeable number. The fact that the article will be a battleground, is no reason for deleting it. -- RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Now it's nominated for deletion? I find it funny that it has been up for the past few days with no problem but once the title was simplified from monavie (multi-level marketing) to monavie, the discussions breaks loose. Whereas the past stubs were seemingly deleted because for spam, it seems like this article was first made to criticize it. However with the efforts of the community, more information on the company is released. According to the information gathered here, the annual revenue is higher than other notable MLM companies such as Xango, USANA etc. Sales like that can be interpreted a number of ways, one being the the amount of exposure it has. It is a notable example of a successful binary plan just as Amway and Tupperware are good example of the unilevel type of MLM. With that said, time will tell if this company will keep it's notability as other functional beverages such as Tahitian Noni and Xango or if it will fade away as just another company. Holannakata (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2008 (UTC) — Holannakata (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That would be because MonaVie was salted, so the new title was not spotted to start with. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not notable enough. The only significance this company holds is the annual revenue and there are other companies that don't have articles with equivalent or higher revenue. The company is young. There is no significant media coverage. There is no notable controversy that escalated up to the legal realm. According to the income disclosure issued out based on July 2007 statistics, there was only 25,451 "active" distributors which is relatively small. As a matter of fact I was surprised to find this article because I place a search every so often. As stated in the article, the company does not make health benefit claims diminishing the chance on expanding on that issue. Well I had a fun weekend editing the article. Holannakata (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Squeaks by with two notable news mentions (CNN and Reuters). As long as article is monitored for spam closely, this particular MLM is notable enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I created this article because of the fact that it is impossible to find a neutral and informative source of information about the company. I believe it is notable because it is a large company that makes its money through grassroots recruitment (pyramid scheme, binary, whatever you want to call it). I have witnessed Monavie members engaging in highly questionable sales tactics (entrapment, promises it will cure every disease known to man, promises you will become a millionaire, etc...) and I think allowing this article to exist will let potential participants research the situation before they get involved. When I created the article I was very careful to be completely neutral. All of the "controversial" elements have been added by subsequent editors. Ideally this article will remain so that both sides can present their evidence and the public can be more informed.Ulcer boy (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very honorable of you to make an article for that purpose. I was looking at the history of the pages and noticed how it started and it seemed after an anonymous person from Massachusets added some personal criticism on income and health claims (sames concerns that you had with distributors). My changes wanted to reflect the companies views rather than problems that came up due to the way distributors misrepresented the company and product. 75.93.116.66 (talk) 06:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep because no neutral sources exist" is functionally equivalent to delete under Wikipeia policy. Just so you know. Guy (Help!) 00:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JERRY ^talk _contribs 02:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. CNN and Reuters articles suggest notability. I'd like to see more coverage though, particularly some that is clearly focused on the company, rather than on açai. Jfire (talk) 04:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very Week Keep~~Strong Keep Squeezes by with two notable news mentions ~~but yet an article just about their revenues isn't that important~~ What am I saying, sorry I was talking on the phone and I wrote this by accident. My apologies.Warrior4321^talkContribs 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't want to sound one sided on this but I drink it I belive in it becausee it has done things for me I don't have a lot of medical knowledge on this it just works. I breath better, I feal better, I sleep better. thats my proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.13.138.87 (talk) 16:19, 26 February 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.