Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit-Land.com


 * 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 delete. Courcelles (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Credit-Land.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This website/company has carefully cultivated a presence on the internet, but as far as I can tell, it's all smoke and mirrors and SEO. Let's look at the six sources currently cited.

1 A Forbes article. Great, right? Except not. This is actually a blog post masquerading as an article. See the tiny blurb on top: "Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own." Clicking on the contributor's name to learn more about him 404s. Clearly no notability is conferred by this source.

2 Primary source. Next.

3 Oh look, it's another fake Forbes article. As least this contributor has a bio page. It doesn't matter, though, because the website in question is barely mentioned in this article. And by barely mentioned, I mean not mentioned. There's a single link in the article, "apply for a credit card", that links to credit-land.com, for reasons unknown.

4 A fake Forbes article? You don't say! Written by the same person as before. This time there's an entire quote from a credit-land.com analyst. Needless to say, this is not enough.

5 This is an in-depth "interview" with the editor-in-chief of Credit-Land.com. The interviewer is The Intuit Small Business Blog. The person behind that is a single journalist called Susan Johnston. here is her website, and here is the blog itself. No notability to be found anywhere.

6 I'm starting to really dislike these "articles".

I apologize for the snark. Personal opinion bleedthrough. That said, I think we can fairly objectively establish that none of those sources qualify as reliable.

The good news is that I can find about 20 more "sources" like that without trying. Credit-land.com has really done a lot of work, kudos to their PR team. The bad news is that every single one (that I have found) is paper-thin; lacking content, or reliability, or both. This sort of thing is great for getting search engines to like you. Unfortunately, here we have humans looking at the sources, and these do not remotely pass muster. Ashenai (talk) 16:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know exactly where to talk to u, try to do it here. So, why in the article of some sites from the same category (for example this site https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_Karma) the same reference to Forbes is ok? And some more references to their own(!) blog (Credit Karma Blog) and some other sources that looks like unreliable too (http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-07-30/a-free-credit-report-with-no-strings-attached-dot-honest). Are they more reliable and if so why (for me to know how to make my article about CRedit Land more reliable) or this site (and some other from the category as well) are treated differently?? I understand in general your point of view but what I can't understand is whyyy other sites are ok with even absolutely the same references (like Forbes blog). Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas A 2 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
 * (copying this reply from my talk page) Just because other stuff exists, that doesn't mean it's okay! Wikipedia is imperfect, and we don't see everything. I don't have time to do a detailed check on Credit Karma right now, but I will later; and yeah if the source is bad it needs to be removed.
 * That said, the main problem with the Credit-Land.com article isn't that it has bad sources; that would not be a valid reason for deletion. The problem is that it has no good (reliable) sources. Not a single one. And I couldn't find any on Google, either. Credit Karma does have sources that look okay at first glance (although I might revise this opinion once I go through them in more detail.) If it turns out that none of its sources are good, either, then I will nominate it for deletion as well. --Ashenai (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wow. Nice job by . If I had simply glanced at this article, I wouldn't have thought twice about keeping. But looking into the sources, their analysis is spot on. In the AfC process, we come across these all the time. I wonder how many of these types of articles exist on the mainspace.  Onel 5969  TT me 14:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete for now as my searches found nothing better than some more passing mentions. Feel free to draft and userfy to userspace if needed, SwisterTwister   talk  21:46, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. AusLondonder (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2015 (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.