Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compare Free Credit Report and Score Websites


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   no consensus. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Compare Free Credit Report and Score Websites

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Per WP:DIRECTORY. Barely any real content. Possibly an advert for Quizzle. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as original prodder. There seems to be a bit of OR as well, with the quotes around free in the chart's title. And also fails WP:NOTDIR. I don't think it's advert, though. As far as I can tell from the creator's comments and contribs, he did it in good faith. Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - for the sake of completeness, the creator's explanation for contesting the prod is: (verbatim quote follows)


 * It's material enough to have a section of the Credit score (United States) page and there's major confusion amongst consumers on this topic. There should be a trusted reference that people can turn to in order to understand what's the real scoop on these offers and websites. Wikipedia is that source for many people. Plus, many of these sites have their own Wikipedia page because they've been deemed relevant enough. It would be helpful to bring these pages together in one place for big picture and comparison purposes.


 * Tim Song (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Although it is good work by the editor, and useful, it is not really WP's mission to be a kind of Consumer Reports type guide. (I'm sure that's at least implied somewhere in the policies.) Another issue is that the prices and so forth of the websites listed could change at any time. Borock (talk) 16:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a directory (per WP:What Wikipedia is not) and as original research via synthesis. Cnilep (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I really don't understand why this reference chart is so controversial. Google "free credit report" or "free credit score" and you'll see all the confusion about what's really free, what's the officially sanctioned government site and what's the potential risk for consumers. This chart plainly spells out what consumers can expect from each of the sites. If the prices change, I'm sure evangelists from the respective companies will update them. The quotes have been removed from the "Free" in the title to alleviate any concerns about insinuations there. Anything else that can be done to save this reference? BamukaDelish (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Does not seem to be an obvious advertisement (Quizzle might legitimately be the only free site), and Wikipedia has many "Comparison of..." chart articles that deal with commercial products in an encyclopedic manner. A few examples: Comparison of file archivers, Comparison of wiki software, Comparison of portable media players etc.  As long as this chart is well-sourced, I don't see why it should be treated any differently than the rest.  I would recommend changing the name to Comparison of Free Credit Report Websites though.  Amazinglarry (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete Right now we don't even know if any of this information is correct, we are assuming that the original author has provided accurate information but I don't like the idea of having to constantly check sites to see if they have changed rates/policies. Furthermore this page could become a magnet for competitors editing each other's site information in an attempt to promote their site. This type of page would be okay as a reference for Wikipedia but its not encyclopedic. Boston2austin (talk) 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment This logic doesn't make the slightest bit of sense to me. You're essentially arguing that wikipedia should not have articles on anything that changes rapidly because it's too hard to keep the page updated, and anything that is a commercial product or service because of vandalism by competitors.  I still don't see how this article is any different than the other examples I linked to above except that it needs to be sourced better, which is not a valid argument for deletion.  Amazinglarry (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Moved to Comparison of free credit report websites and cleaned up formatting. No position on deletion. --Cyber cobra (talk) 04:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the same as with other comparable articles. We should be able, though, to find some article that actually compares them, to use as an additional reference.    DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.