Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit Karma


 * 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. Whpq's sources (and others) would seem to provide a basis for a less promotional re-write, but there is no clear consensus either way. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Credit Karma

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

Article has been around just a little too long for me to speedy it without discussion IMO, and it's a judgment call, but db-spam speedy deletion is my personal vote. There are 36 hits at Google archives, but they're pretty fluffy. The best of the bunch look like this and this. - Dank (push to talk) 20:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- - Dank (push to talk) 20:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - This Bloomberg article is specifically about Credit Karma. This Ecommerce Times article, although not exclusive, features the Credit Karma prominently.  This combined with the less substantial coverage noted by the nominator is enough to establish notability.  But just to pile one, there is additional smaller coverage with, , and .  The article currently inclues a link to a Lifestylemag article solely about Credit Karma but it is unclear if Lifestyle mag qualifies as a reliable source. -- Whpq (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Disclosure: I am an engineer at Credit Karma. I was just going over the SERPs for our site when I ran across this wikipedia entry and I felt I should leave a note regarding site notability. We have about 450K users with thousands more signing up daily. We were listed as one of the "Best Online Tools for Personal Finance" (#5) by the Wall Street Journal . We've been in the WSJ other times as well; here's another from last week . Last year, we won Best In Show at Finovate .  We've been all over local news and the web; Consumerist several times, About.com, etc.  Radio hosts such as Clark Howard routinely recommend us , , , , and so on.  We've been in TIME Magazine, Newsweek , Reuters , the NY Times , and many more.  A partial list is on our press page at .  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.138.238 (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete pure advert; violates WP:SPAM --mhking (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Non-notable spam. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Probation opportunity to become less promotional. Otherwise delete.--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete purely promotional as it is now, maybe have someone without COI rewrite it from scratch if it's notable enough. -- NathanoNL [ usr | msg |  log ]  20:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep on the basis of the WSJ reference above + the NYT. I do not think the article is particularly promotional, tho I would source the material to the newspaper s, not their own site. DGG (talk) 00:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and Rewrite Bases on AuthorityTams comment. Click23 (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, its clearly a website with its notability on the rise, per the articles referenced. There's links to more articles on the site itself.--CastAStone//₵₳$↑₳₴₮ʘ№€ 18:34, 23 June 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.