Talk:Multi-level marketing

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Multi-level marketing article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4: 30 days

Business High‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Marketing & Advertising High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Marketing & Advertising, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Marketing on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Marketing & AdvertisingWikipedia:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingTemplate:WikiProject Marketing & AdvertisingMarketing & Advertising articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

On 21 February 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to MLM. The result of the discussion was not moved.

Archives

Archive 1 (2005–2008)
Archive 2 (June–Sept 2009)
Archive 3 (Sept 2009-April 2010)

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Inaccurate sourcing

The Participants section claims that 99.6% of participants lost money, and also claims the finding was endorsed by FTC (note the url is titled "Reports from Federal Trade Commission website"). However, the claim was actually a self-published pdf entered into the comment section against a proposed ruling, and the statistic didn't make it into the final ruling. Reference: /www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/public_comments/ Recommend deletion of this source unless corroborating evidence can be discovered from a neutral source. DeknMike (talk) 18:29, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I actually share some of your qualms, I am not sure this is all that compelling an objection. Other reliable sources seem to look at this very paper as carrying some authority, like The Washington Post, Northeastern's Student Newspaper, The Guardian, etc., and more seem to consider Mr. Taylor an expert. For me the citation passes muster, but reasonable minds may differ on the subject. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 21 February 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. No support for the move. Original proposer agreeing to "yield." No consensus for making MLM the primary redirect. Fuzheado | Talk 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~Multi-level marketing → MLM~~
MLM → MLM (disambiguation)

– Search engines (Google, scholar, DDG, bing) bring up Multi-level marketing for MLM as top results. Although Scholar does give the most mixed results and with the term being spelt out in titles, general usage seems to indicate the MLM strongly refers to Multi-level-marketing. WP:PRIMARY TOPIC, WP:CONCISE. Akalendos (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are proposing to change the current article title, which is a clear and unambiguous description of the subject matter, to an abbreviation that needs a disambiguation page? What exactly is that supposed to achieve? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:57, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hmm, decent point. I yield. What do you say about turning MLM into a primary redirect? Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, though I'd favour making MLM a primary redirect instead. 162 etc. (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, this is what should be done. Akalendos (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it's inappropriate to have the abbreviation as the title. --Killuminator (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming article as "MLM" is neither unambiguous nor is there evidence of it being the most common name for this topic. I do suspect that this meaning of MLM is the primary one though, so support changing the redirect of MLM to point here (with hatnote to the DAB page at MLM (disambiguation)) seems reasonable. DMacks (talk) 19:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

~~It seems we have consensus.~~

I admit this was a mistake. I'm really quite new and just found WP:MOVE and got a little trigger-happy.
A redirect would be much more appropriate.
~~I consent to closure.~~

Sorry and thank you all for humoring me and my errors Akalendos (talk) 20:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have consensus. IT is way too soon to close this as having consensus, tho I would say it is reasonable to strike the first bit as it appears you've withdrawn that bit. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sure yes, I am wrong yet again. I guess I'm not sure I get the difference in this case, as I am the only one advocating for this silly and excessive move, but yes. For sure. I've just striked the text. Even now, it seems I find a way to continue clowning about. Akalendos (talk) 20:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I meant striking the move for this to MLM. THere does seem to be some support to move MLM to MLM (disambiguation) tho ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 21:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

done Akalendos (talk) 12:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a primary topic for "MLM": the dab page got 827 views last month [1], and only a third of these (or 276) resulted in a click for this article's entry [2]. But if you look at just the outgoing clicks from the dab page, then the proportion would be more like two thirds (or 60–69%). – Uanfala (talk) 12:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move and primary redirect. Status quo achieves the best result. The disambig page is more useful for readers looking for the other topics. -- Netoholic @ 19:26, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move (per all the above) and primary redirect (per Unafala). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 07:00, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—clarity for readers, please. Tony (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Oppose and also oppose making MLM a primary redirect. Dicklyon (talk) 10:24, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

picture

what does that picture have to do with the contents of the article? 2601:18F:80:1C0:C20D:ADD5:6ED0:F96E (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Undoing every single change I made without any meaningful justification is pure vandalism. If you don't understand English grammar, or simple content guidelines like WP:WTW, you have no business editing Wikipedia at all. 81.136.216.20 (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see...you edited against some sort of talk-page consensus. That's agaist WP:CON policy. I explained my edits based on standard WP policies and guidelines (eventually giving up doing it piecewise because it was too complex for me). So what I did is explicitly excluded from the WP:VANDALISM definintion. You called it vandalism, which represents a failure on your part to follow the WP:AGF behavior policy. You made the same edits repeatedly, even after someone made good-faith objection. That is against WP:EW behavior policy. You hang your hat on a single style-guide item, despite it being only a guideline (and therefore by design subject to rational exceptions). Do you maybe want to change your approach and tone? DMacks (talk) 09:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to anyone reading this, this is WP:LTA/BKFIP, who has been community banned for years. It isn't worth arguing with them. MrOllie (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good eye. DMacks (talk) 18:59, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mormons Losing Money" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Mormons Losing Money has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 October 28 § Mormons Losing Money until a consensus is reached. LR.127 (talk) 20:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]