Talk:ClickBank

header text
Come on guys, this is spam and the page has been written by either company employers or interested parties (e.g. marketplace). It doesn't even make any reference to the "problems/debate" about the legitimacy of this business.. I "vote" for deletion or a more really "informative" page.. --Lobianco (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

I did research on the company and found a specific page that outlines the exact problems I had while purchasing a product through the company. I edited your ClickBank page so that it would give a more accurate description of how the company functioned with specific references I obtained at the site. The page is very legitimate because it gives both positive and negative comments http://www.linktrackr.com/blog/clickbank-review/.

I have inquired further into one of the sources quoted on this page, which I previously understood to be a company press release. In fact that source was the Denver Business Journal; the company actually reprinted their article in their PR section. I understand the confusion but I have made quite sure that this was an original article from the DBJ and not, as thought, written or in any way influenced by the PR department at ClickBank.

Regarding notability, ClickBank is one of the largest internet companies by traffic in the world and one of the top 100 by Alexa ranking. In and of itself this creates notability. Other similar companies such as Commission Junction are not scheduled for deletion; nor are companies with far fewer employees, traffic, billings and notable achievements in creating a worldwide business.

___ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanrice (talk • contribs) 17:25, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that previous versions of this topic have been deleted. As the writer I have attempted to strictly follow Wiki guidelines regarding notability, citation, neutral language and so on. If there is puffery of any sort I am happy to remove it. Otherwise I request that the page be given a chance, not just five minutes - this is, after all, one of the largest industries in America and a growing one, something that is actually providing people with jobs during the recession. Is that noteworthy? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh2FlUsolxE I believe so!

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Jonathanrice (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2011 (UTC) the duplication of a previous press release was unwitting - I am a third party, not an employee of ClickBank and I had not seen this before. Second, the entry is NOT written as a puff piece for some company, it is written because the company is notable in a huge and growing industry, affiliate marketing, that may not be as exciting to some as to others, but which nonetheless provides jobs to tens of thousands of people in this country. Simply because it IS about a company should not be a reason to delete it, only because it is advertising - which it most clearly is not. - The Author.

Further, an editor has already removed the section that he considered may break neutrality in terms of being promotional, which I accept of course. In addition, the citation that I believed was from the Denver Business Journal but was actually merely a reprint of a press release has now been properly tagged.

I am doing everything in my power to make this Wikiworthy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathanrice (talk • contribs) 13:28, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement Language Template Tag
I revised the article to eliminate any advertorial language and added more facts about the company on the ClickBank wikipedia to make it a more informational page. I'm removing the template tag due to those changes. If anyone evaluates the page and determines that I missed an area or two, feel free to fix it yourself or discuss that here.

--BrettofMoore 16:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrettofMoore (talk • contribs)

Question about work
how do i work with wikipedia Avayemahtab101 (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

"provided services in over 200 countries"
According to https://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/countries_of_the_world.htm:

Since South Sudan became an independent state on July 9, 2011, there are now 195 independent sovereign nations in the world (not including the disputed but de facto independent Taiwan)

If they are claiming to provide services to more countries than there are in the world, either they (somewhat surprisingly) are providing services to those on other planets, or this is a false statement. If such an easily checked fact is false, how much can anyone trust anything else on the page?

Kgrittn (talk) 17:27, 8 February 2021 (UTC)