Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GreenZap

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. MBisanz ^talk 07:58, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GreenZap

This service was never really started up. It was a simple scam that died out before it ever started. I think it really has no value as its own article. At most it could be mentioned as past scam on some other page. As of right now its also orphaned and has been abandoned by Wiki editors for over 6 months. JeremyWJ (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have subst'd in page, category info etc. Baileypalblue (talk) 06:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. News coverage is not great [1], a little spammy, but I'd say the cease and desist orders in multiple states are enough to establish notability. The controversy section is out of proportion with the rest of the article, but that's not as fatal here as it would be with a BLP article. Orphaned and abandoned are reasons for editing, not deletion. Baileypalblue (talk) 09:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand orphaned and abandoned are not really reasons to delete. They do however help my point that this article is useless. It has no point on wikipedia. There are literally thousands of scams like this every year. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The people who were behind Greenzap would like this article to disappear. It did actually start up, per a long running thread on scam.com, and spamming all over the Internet. At the present time, people who gave their checking account information to Greenzap years ago are having fraudulent withdrawals made from their checking account. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.18.54 (talk) 17:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It did not start up. People were allowed to enter their information before hand to get that $25 promotion thing. Those people were scammed. After that you got a 404 for the sign up page. The people who ran greenzap could care less if this page stays or not. At no point was anyone actually able to use greenzap for anything. JeremyWJ (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are some unconfirmed reports over the past few days that the people behind Greenzap (allegedly Damon Westmoreland) may be involved in another financial processing company that has come under scrutiny. So, the topic relates to a current issue and may be of value to researchers. Shritwod (talk) 23:13, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 00:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with keep here. There's a fair amount of notable information in here, reliable sources for that. Seems like one of the more notable scams that happened. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:30, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, people should be warned about this kind of thing. Hilary T In Shoes (talk) 15:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Baileypalblue. The orphaned status is easily fixed, there are plenty of places it could be at least a "see also" such as List of confidence tricks and Internet fraud. SpinningSpark 20:32, 15 March 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.