Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Credit Savvy


 * 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. czar 06:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Credit Savvy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completing (and relisting) the below nomination, which was not added to the log. On the merits, no opinion - but I do note that some of the references are Press Releases and similar pages indicative of a promotional article. The original rationale follows. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 20:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Page is spam. Wikipedia is not a place to post promotional material for your services, products or to promote any other cause. Page has been written by employee/s of the organisation, which are discouraged from writing articles about their organization (including their campaigns, clients, products and services) in which they hold a vested interest.No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have discussed it. Organisation has had no significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikey 78 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:47, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - probably could have been a G11 - it's pure promotion, lacks notability and RS. It's only cited to one source that could be considered "independent". Atsme 📞📧 14:55, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ultraexactzz (talk • contribs) 20:57, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. News Corp Australia and Seven News are both reliable sources. Wikipedia should also be a consumer friendly encyclopedia and services that give people their credit score for free and track your rating are important services. There are lot of consumers who get roped into getting high interest credit cards, expensive payday loans, high interest car loans and other unfavorable credit products due to not previously using tools that help them manage their credit profile. The banks, finance companies and payday loan companies have enough money. Let's not give them more. I have seen countless people buried under big debt loads when it was completely unnecessary. In addition, we live in an era of big data breeches like the one at Experian. More people need to monitor their credit. Wikipedia needn't put up unreasonable barriers to entry in terms of companies like Credit Savvy having an article about them. The article indicates: "Credit Savvy launched on 10 March 2015, the first anniversary of the introduction of comprehensive credit reporting in Australia - an overhaul of the credit reporting rules that allowed credit providers to add a lot more information to consumer credit reports." Credit/capital are very important components of modern economies and often small businesses startups find it a particularly challenging to get funded and have sufficient capital. Many small businesses use credit cards when cash flow is tight when they know the turnaround time in profits is quick. And small businesses are very much economic engines of growth. It is very important that people - especially business people - be able to monitor their credit with as much depth as possible and in a very timely manner.  Modern societies need more companies like Credit Savvy as they protect consumers and oil the engines of commerce in the small business and startup sectors. So again, let's not put up unreasonable barriers in terms of companies like Credit Savvy being able to tell consumers about there products. So let's not delete the article. A far more sensible solution given the importance of companies like Credit Savvy is to trim the article of information that is merely supported by PR services such as the #3 footnote (PR Wire footnote).Knox490 (talk) 02:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is a similar discussion to the Afd we had at TransUnion CIBIL. The organization collecting credit information is notable. The website providing access to that information is not ... unless you can show something remarkable. These websites are common. An ILIKEIT argument is not sufficient. This article was written by a COI editor. Rhadow (talk) 13:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete The "Keep" argument is essentially a variation on WP:ITSIMPORTANT but does mention two potential WP:RS: articles in News Corp Australia and Seven News. Unfortunately, one of those articles merely mentions the site in passing and the other has a short quote from one of the site's executives both in the context of longer articles.  Neither source counts as "significant coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggishorn (talk • contribs) 04:30, October 7, 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- an unremarkable commercial product, does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:NWEB. The content as it stands is strictly promotional, as in:
 * In addition, Credit Savvy hosts a Credit Knowledge Centre which has range of articles about managing credit and credit reporting in general, as well as the Credit Savvy Blog which includes some general hints and tips to maintaining a healthy credit score and credit reputation.


 * K.e.coffman (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2017 (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.