Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundance Vacations

Sundance Vacations

Sundance Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Current article is a POV rant that lacks notability and the article has historically swung from a POV rant to a POV brochure, mainly edited by single purpose accounts. Despite repeated requests, sourcing is from poor or primary sources. The lack of good, reliable secondary sources means there is no way to produce an article with appropriate balance and suggests the company is not notable enough for an article in the first place. Recommend deletion.SiobhanHansa 14:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete No reliable secondary sources show up in the first two pages of a Google search. YixilTesiphon ^Talk_Contribs 15:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I also object to the article being deleted for the same valid reasons given by the moderator (Baronvon) on April 10, 2008:

"This article must remain. Sundance Vacations has noteriety on a number of websites due to the number of dissatisfied and irate customers. In addition many members have noted public information about court cases. This is exacty the type of information that should be available in Wikipedia. It defines borderline legal activities that take advantage of consumers." (Emphasis added) --Baronvon (talk) 06:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Obviously this article serves the public interest, but Sundance advocates have made numerous attempts to censor this artice despite the overwhelming public documentation of some of the problems that Sundance has experienced with consumer relations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 15:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I continue to agree that the article as it currently reads has merit and has been informative for a number of people looking for information about how Sundance Vacations really operates. The source info from public records of court actions is undeniable. I do not see how another poster fails to see that his request has been granted multiple times requiring source material. If the person requesting further information does not trust the US Federal government, various States Courts and local court systems and record keeping and public notice that is his problem and not Wikipedia.

It is interesting that Sundance has undertaken multiple ways to alter the message and failing that trying to get it deleted.

There is no legitimate reason to remove the article or change the message that it conveys. I would need to see some substantial reason why it would need to be altered from some other party. --Baronvon (talk) 20:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice to an encyclopedic article. We are not a universal information provider, just an encyclopedia. We're not even primarily a consumer information web site. It is possible that a decent encyclopedic article on this could be written, but this is not it. For one thing, it needs full references from undoubtedly reliable sources for every negative statement. I see only one acceptable reference, for a minor wage regulation violation. If someone will provide the sources, I will try to quickly write a stub article, By precedent, we've used BBB and other consumer information sites under reliable and well-reputed editorial control, and of course newspaper articles. But at t his point I almost would consider it a speedy. DGG (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many “reliable,” “verifiable” and public document “sources.”

Source: Press Release, State of New Jersey http://www.state.nj.us/labor/press/2005/0829WageHour.htm

Source: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania docket number. 05-CV-04193 claiming discrimination. Sundance Vacations settled the case out of court.

Source: Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County, docket number L-8256-06. The civil suit detailed numerous violations of N.J.S.A. 56:8 et seq. of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, by utilizing “false pretenses through the use of unconscionable commercial practices.” Sundance Vacations settled the case out of court.

Source: This comprehensive report was invited by Sundance Vacations and it is well documented from various other “reliable” “sources.” http://streettalkblog.com/?p=1860 - more-1860