Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spokeo

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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spokeo

This article is probably just spam, but I thought it was worth more than a speedy delete - they company is just another non-notable search engine, but they do have a small measure of notoriety for they unethical behaviour and mass spamming (http://www.google.com/search?q=spokeo+spam). Unfortunately their spamming extends to Wikipedia; pretty much the entire article is written by Spokeo registered IPs or accounts created just for this article, and includes careful citations to a previous version of their product (the current version just attempts to harvest people's address books, using positive reviews of the previous version as a kind of bait-and-switch). If there is anything worth saving here, I think a ground-up rewrite would be required. akaDruid (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability established via significant to exclusive coverage in multiple reliable sources: Newsweek, PC World, Wall Street Journal, CNet, TechCrunch. These sources are already cited in the article. To be honest, I'm not sure why this was even nominated, given that it so easily passes WP:N. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 15:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found by LinguistAtLarge, notability is clearly established. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every source listed in the article is equally reliable but between those and the ones listed by Lnguist, there are plenty to satisfy the criteria. _ Mgm|^(talk) 09:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The sources listed above appear to assert notability; but the result is an article is misleading, if not deceitful. The site has substantially changed since those sources were written. Also the article is being maintained by the company itself to create a positive image for a frankly slimy business model. akaDruid (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The answer to that would be to edit the article and make it more accurate. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 18:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I started this article back in 2006. A lot of things have changed since then, and some information is indeed outdated. Many people have contributed to the original entry as well, so the article is more comprehensive yet not as cohesive as before. Due to these reasons, I rewrote and reorganized the entire article into distinct topical sections on April 9, 2009 hoping to improve the article content quality. I did not change or delete the original information; rather, I added new information and references to make the article more informative. Moreover, I did try to keep the content objective and highlight all the privacy controversies surrounding Spokeo in the Content Privacy section. If people think that the article is not as objective as it should be, please feel free to add more information or edit it just as many others have done before. man4prez (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (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.