Talk:Registered Agents Inc.

Does not appear to meet notability

This article does not appear to meet the notability guidelines. There appears to be insignificant coverage to merit a standalone article. The cited coverage is primarily from minor sources or even blogs which might not be deemed reliable. The two articles from Wired are from a major source, but seem insufficient to establish notability and are also problematic in that their central focus is speculation on company ownership which they ultimately did not prove - it would likely require piercing the corporate veil in order to establish verifiability of ownership or beneficial ownership -- the Registered Agents' corporate attorney was reported as stating categorically that Dan Keen was not the owner. There is also an issue with the Wired articles, IMHO, in that there seems to be expressed bias in criticizing an apparently legal enterprise. I am thinking this article might be a candidate for deletion, or perhaps redirection to the Epik article which does have the necessary gravitas. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:ASSESS to better understand a Start class of article. - Amigao (talk) 23:44, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what WP:ASSESS has to do with notability or verifiability. I do know that neutrality is not only policy it is one of the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. The article does include some mildly controversial or derogatory sourced content but it seems as if written by an advocate.

It seems apparent that registered agents in general are not well regulated. It also seems that the majority of the sources use words such as "shadowy new owner" (shadowy firm), "world's most controversial domain registrar", or other derogatory terms.

The name Dan Keen is used in the lead and the body of the article with wording "company founded by Dan Keen". "According to two people familiar with the company" is anonymous.

A "lawyer for Registered Agents Inc. says Keen is not the owner nor an employee of Registered Agents Inc. or Epik, and that he acted as a consultant in the acquisition", directly refutes ownership. However this is anonymous also.

Being the registered agent of shady companies is not illegal. Using fake personas or otherwise masking ownership by providing false names would certainly twart law enforcement and court orders, so would be illegal. Misleading information can be an issue on a BLP or related subject where the names of living people are used. There is the name of a man claimed, and not by himself, to be the owner of a business, and information, from an attorney. Notability does seem to be an issue as there is misinformation or false information.

In my opinion this article is not encyclopedia worthy. An issue is that there is not enough reliable sourcing to definitively point one way or the other or to reliably present both sides of the issue. A lot of the sourcing is fairly new so it could be it is just too soon. There is enough written that points to there possibly being future lawsuits and certainly investigations into all the allegations. At the very least the article should be blown up and restarted. -- Otr500 (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm interested in hearing why Amigao has re-rated the article they themmselves wrote, downgrading it from C-Class to Start-class? Regardless, the article continues to be problematic from my POV as it is framed in such a way as to assert primary notability based upon the notability of the company it acquired (Epik) rather than its own merits. CapnPhantasm (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)