Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sundance Vacations

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 Delete. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundance Vacations

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Do not delete: 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)[reply]

Do not delete: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)[reply]

Please !vote only once. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful reading above shows the previous !vote is from User:Georganne where as this one is from USER:Baronvon. (Georganne' reference to and quotes of previous comments by Barovan make this difficult to see at first glance). -- SiobhanHansa 15:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks for catching my error. Their comments kind of blended together. Edward321 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

~~Do not Delete:~~ 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 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) 16:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once.Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Half the article is poorly sourced proclamations of how wonderful the subject is, the other half is poorly sourced accusations of how horrible the subject is. Neither side indicates the subject is in any way notable. Edward321 (talk) 23:27, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The Better Business Bureau is not a reliable source. The operation has been exposed since it is supported by businesses who are members, very few business members are ever held accountable. All the business has to do is respond (meaning they communicated with the filer of the complaint) to a complaint, not satsify it for the business to be in good standing with the BBB. The Stevie Awards are another bogus outfit exposed as being awards presented to those companies who pay for it. The poor business practices of Sundance are explained as clearly as can be with this being an open forum and the business in question challenging claims. Sources of legitimate problems with the company are posted and cannot be challenged by Sundance since they are public records. I do not know why User:DGG would consider a wage claim with substantial settlement "minor". Nor do I understand why User:YixilTesiphon would considere the first two pages of a Google search reliable. The documented sources from public records and many other records do not show up on Google. In fact using Goggle to authenticate the accuracy would indicate a lack of un derstanding of how research for an encyclopedia article works. --Baronvon (talk) 14:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please !vote only once. Edward321 (talk) 15:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was replying to a comment--Baronvon (talk) 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's permit the Editors to decide who's a Sundance advocate attempting to control the accurate, documented, and undeniable souces of information. It is inconceivable that anyone would question the validity, accuracy, reliability and verifiability of public records!

Wikipedia is for consumers and unfavorable but documented information should be available to the public. Wikipedia is not meant to be a commercial for Sundance Vacations as many Sundance advocates are promoting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georganne (talk • contribs) — Georganne (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

comment Public records are primary sources and often need secondary sources to be interpreted. We do not ourselves do the interpretation, nor do we present the unfiltered sources if the interpretation is potentially controversial. We present the secondary sources, such as reliable newspapers and other material under editorial control. The BBB is in my opinion to be considered a reliable secondary source precisely because they filter the complaints. Whether they have a pro or anti consumer bias is another matter, and can be dealt with in an individual case by presenting other sources that also edit the material they get, such as reliable newspapers. I'd think that such negative information as they do include is to be considered generally reliable--if they do in fact hold a pro-business bias, that makes their information all the more reliable. That someone has made a claim is evidence that someone has made a claim, not of the facts of the claim. That something is settled out of court is not evidence of the truth or falsity of the claim. WP is not for consumers--WP is an encyclopedia providing verified information for the benefit of those who choose to use it. For all I know, everything said negatively about this company may be true, and we can include what is acceptably sourced, along with anything positive, to the extent there are good secondary sources. There are none present here. DGG (talk) 00:03, 26 August 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.