336:- Agreed, this article should likely be removed as much of the information contained here is miscategorized, simply false, or completely subjective without any real citation or reference. Having spent years actually working at three different "Who's Who" companies and having intimate knowledge of the industry, I can attest firsthand that the majority of these companies aren't a "scam" and aren't participating in fraudulent business practices. Could one categorize some of these companies as a vanity publishing company? 100%, but that is by no means a scam. The article explicitly states that the "Who's Who Scam" involves the selling of fraudulent directories or memberships. In my experience the registries are produced and sent to the members while also generally filed with the Library of Congress. As far as the sale of membership goes, that's also true, but many of these companies offer an online networking platform (a la LinkedIn) as their main benefit of membership, which in turn means they are providing a service in return for a fee. Many of these companies also offer items of recognition such as plaques and certificates at an increased price. The point is that if a consumer sees value in membership or the purchase of a registry containing their information, and they go decide to pay a fee (on their own volition) for such a service, how exactly is that a scam or fraudulent business practice? The article is poorly cited from old sources that stem from subjective opinions/experience. The external links section provides little use and information on anything that would related to a supposed "Who's Who Scam". Also to challenge some other items in this article, in p2, the article says "This information can be included in the fraudulent directory, sold to other marketing firms, or used in future attacks such as phishing emails." - in my experience this has NEVER been the case. No company in their right mind would sell information of a paying customer. Furthermore, there's no source cited or proof contained that any Who's Who company has actually engaged in this practice. This seems purely subjective. p3 mentions that "recently incorporated companies are often behind these scams" - can someone provide proof of this or cite some source that says this? The text contained within p5 is also completely subjective and without reference or citation. Who's to say that A & C Black's Who's Who is any more legitimate or a point of reference than any other Who's Who? The bit about Tucker Carlson and Marquis Who's Who is also seemingly out of context and really seems a bit off topic in generally. In the see also section, it's also confusing to see why "American Biographical Institute", "Academic paper mill", "Employment scams", and "International Biographical Centre" are listed as none of them relate to a "Who's Who Scam" and are more suited to be listed under the vanity press article. Unless someone can provide some better references/citations that are fairly new and aren't completely subjective in nature, I would definitely say this article is a good candidate for deletion. Instead, a snippet of information pertaining to "Who's Who" companies should probably be created under the vanity press page on Knowledge (XXG). --
354:
publication. Whether this is a scam or not is a matter of perspective, the subject of the scam does receive a service, that of having their ego polished for a fee; and most adult individuals will fully be aware of nthe nature of the transactiom. The newer phishing example in order to extract personal details to commit identity fraud is most definately a scam.--
353:
candidate for improvement rather than deletion. Needs to be sectioned and explained that it is not a single scam but possibly two, sometimes related ones. The older is the vanity one, to offer to include a subscribers details in a publication in return for a payment or the purchase of the
535:
I just looked up this topic on
Knowledge (XXG) because I received an email containing what appeared to be a who's who scam. I agree the article needs to be improved with more specific references, but it serves a beneficial public purpose.
173:
501:), but the ones that discuss the concept broadly do not fit into specific articles except this one. There are also more relevant hits on Highbeam, but I'm a bit tired of reading about scams at the moment.
284:
It would be absurd to ask for an 'other side' to this because the other side is perpetrating fraud; sourced well enough and a common scam. Definitely an expansion candidate much more than deletion.
497:. Some of these are focused more on specific instances, and others are about the topic as a whole. I will accept that the specific cases could be added to their associated articles (such as
415:. Having a separate article like this appears especially inappropriate because the scam allegation seems to apply to the whole "Who's Who" business, rather than just a piece or aspect of it.
480:
126:
167:
221:
261:
241:
133:
434:. This is a popular scam. Looking over the article's history, I'm not too surprised that SPAs have targeted it. Anyway, here's some coverage:
316:– This is a well-known scam. I have no experience with it myself, but have knowledge of it through coverage and cultural references as well.
99:
94:
188:
337:
103:
155:
17:
86:
489:
444:
149:
424:
393:
372:
213:
564:
453:
40:
523:
145:
506:
420:
195:
545:
527:
510:
363:
345:
328:
308:
273:
253:
233:
68:
466:
341:
541:
519:
204:
Fails to meet notability guidelines, heavily based on opinion with few, if any, reliable sources of fact
560:
502:
435:
36:
161:
90:
537:
416:
299:
181:
498:
471:
448:
412:
205:
439:
269:
249:
229:
64:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
559:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
404:
55:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
493:
484:
457:
359:
209:
317:
82:
74:
384:
287:
265:
245:
225:
60:
120:
475:
355:
408:
462:
375:
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
553:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:. The matter can be easily addressed in existing articles like
518:
the sources provided by NRP demonstrate that this passes GNG.
116:
112:
108:
180:
381:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
194:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
567:). No further edits should be made to this page.
222:list of Literature-related deletion discussions
262:list of Internet-related deletion discussions
242:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
260:Note: This debate has been included in the
240:Note: This debate has been included in the
220:Note: This debate has been included in the
259:
239:
219:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
403:. This looks to me like a
584:
546:18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
528:23:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
511:22:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
425:22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
394:20:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
364:17:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
69:23:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
346:13:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
329:18:36, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
309:18:21, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
274:15:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
254:15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
234:15:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
214:12:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
556:Please do not modify it.
73:
32:Please do not modify it.
449:The New York Times
520:Mellowed Fillmore
499:Marquis Who's Who
440:Los Angeles Times
413:Marquis Who's Who
396:
392:
306:
276:
256:
236:
59:
56:non-admin closure
575:
558:
503:NinjaRobotPirate
494:The Plain Dealer
485:Journal Inquirer
458:Business Insider
391:
389:
382:
380:
378:
376:
325:
307:
302:
296:
295:
290:
199:
198:
184:
136:
124:
106:
53:
34:
583:
582:
578:
577:
576:
574:
573:
572:
571:
565:deletion review
554:
417:Anythingyouwant
397:
385:
383:
371:
369:
318:
300:
293:
288:
285:
141:
132:
97:
81:
78:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
581:
579:
570:
569:
549:
548:
530:
513:
379:
368:
367:
366:
348:
331:
311:
278:
277:
257:
237:
202:
201:
138:
83:Who's Who scam
77:
75:Who's Who scam
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
580:
568:
566:
562:
557:
551:
550:
547:
543:
539:
534:
531:
529:
525:
521:
517:
514:
512:
508:
504:
500:
496:
495:
490:
487:
486:
481:
478:
477:
472:
469:
468:
463:
460:
459:
454:
451:
450:
445:
442:
441:
436:
433:
430:
429:
428:
427:
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
395:
390:
388:
377:
374:
365:
361:
357:
352:
349:
347:
343:
339:
335:
332:
330:
326:
324:
323:
315:
312:
310:
305:
303:
292:
291:
283:
280:
279:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
255:
251:
247:
243:
238:
235:
231:
227:
223:
218:
217:
216:
215:
211:
207:
197:
193:
190:
187:
183:
179:
175:
172:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
147:
144:
143:Find sources:
139:
135:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
71:
70:
66:
62:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
555:
552:
532:
515:
492:
483:
474:
467:Entrepreneur
465:
456:
447:
438:
431:
400:
399:
398:
386:
370:
350:
338:173.68.48.75
333:
321:
320:
313:
297:
286:
281:
203:
191:
185:
177:
170:
164:
158:
152:
142:
129:
49:
47:
31:
28:
476:Forbes Life
168:free images
538:Brettman32
387:Sandstein
561:talk page
437:from the
409:Who's Who
266:• Gene93k
246:• Gene93k
226:• Gene93k
37:talk page
563:or in a
405:POV fork
373:Relisted
322:Мандичка
127:View log
39:or in a
301:chatter
174:WP refs
162:scholar
100:protect
95:history
61:Natg 19
488:, and
401:Delete
356:KTo288
334:Delete
206:FitzJD
146:Google
104:delete
491:from
482:from
473:from
464:from
455:from
446:from
189:JSTOR
150:books
134:Stats
121:views
113:watch
109:links
16:<
542:talk
533:Keep
524:talk
516:Keep
507:talk
432:Keep
421:talk
411:and
360:talk
351:Keep
342:talk
314:Keep
289:Nate
282:Keep
270:talk
250:talk
230:talk
210:talk
182:FENS
156:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
65:talk
50:keep
327:😜
196:TWL
125:– (
52:.
544:)
526:)
509:)
479:,
470:,
461:,
452:,
443:,
423:)
362:)
344:)
272:)
264:.
252:)
244:.
232:)
224:.
212:)
176:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
67:)
540:(
522:(
505:(
419:(
358:(
340:(
319:—
304:)
298:(
294:•
268:(
248:(
228:(
208:(
200:)
192:·
186:·
178:·
171:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
148:(
140:(
137:)
130:·
123:)
85:(
63:(
58:)
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.