Talk:Who's Who scam

message: According to the Better Business Bureau link that keeps being removed,  "Metropolitan Registries publishes electronic biographical directories on CD-Rom and on the internet. _ _ GENERAL INFORMATION: Better Business Bureaus often receive inquiries regarding direct mail solicitations which offer to include the recipient in a biographical directory. The solicitation may be accompanied by a request for a membership fee or for an order of one or more copies of the directory. Some publishers don't charge for the listing, but require purchase of the directory by those listed for a substantial amount. In most cases, no nominee or entry is turned down by the company."
This statement seems to verify that Metropolitan Registries is a legitimate example of a Who's Who scam.  I have had a long discussion with user:Amanda11 on my talk page about this.  See:   Amanda11 appears to be an employee of Metropolitan Registries.  I have advised that her best recourse is to deal directly with BBB rather than delete material from WP.  This will then clear up the issue.  Otherwise it simply appears to be an attempt at a whitewash. Maustrauser 23:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metropolitan Registries 

message: I have re-added Cambridge Who's Who since the target article ssems to have enough sources to justify inclusion here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cambridge Who's Who "see also" 

message: I have removed the following from the "See also" section:
* Distinguished Professionals Online
* Emerald Who's Who
* International Association of Business Leaders
* Madison Who's Who
* Presidential Who's Who
* Who's Who Among Executives and Professionals
They have no sources to support that they are a Who's who scam, and they don't appear to be notable. If one of them is really notable then please write an article on them before re-adding them, or provide a third-party source showing that they are notable enough to mention them in this article. Wikipedia is not a place to smear random companies. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced entries in "see also" 

message: When I was an undergraduate I received materials from these guys asking me to pay them to be included in the Who's Who in America book. I'm just some random undergraduate who won an award or two, haven't accomplished anything, and they want to include me? And for a payment of cash? This is ridiculous to even consider them as a legitimate publication who accomplish what they themselves claim to set out to do. They are fraudulent in their claims and it is correct to include them in an article titled "Who's Who scam".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.30.222 (talk) 03:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing Marquis' Who's Who from legitimacy 

message: This articel talks about whos who in america, the article removes was about the college and university listing which most universitites ascribe to, its different to say its a scam vs, its standards have gone down.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.230.70.247 (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Whos Who in america 

message: ::Note: The text below was (re)moved from the article page. AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opinion from IP-user 

message: This article was merged into Who's Who in what I'm sure was good faith, but the content from this article was subesequently deleted away to almost nothing, often on very questionable policy grounds.  This has led to the various  links leading nowhere.  Therefore, I'm restoring the article now.  —  AjaxSmack  02:39, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the restoration, as if the content was not good enough to remain in the other article, then it probably shouldn't be given its own full article. If there is relevant information to add, then I think it should be added to the main Who's Who article first until there is enough content to justify a separate article, along with good quality sourcing. If there is a problem with broken links, then an anchor could be created in the main Who's Who article. I have also updated this page's redirect to go to the appropriate subsection (although that short subsection could also be restored to the top section if it's not being expanded since it's the only prose paragraph outside of that). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: ​OK.  I added back referenced content, but that creates WP:WEIGHT issues at the Who's Who article.  The actual text (minus lists) on the topic of legitimate Who's Whos is only three sentences, whereas the content on scams is about three times that much.  That imbalance could be seen as an unwarranted tarnishing of legitimate Who's Whos.  We'll see how it holds up. —  AjaxSmack  07:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert merge into [[Who's Who]]