Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom Debt Relief


 * 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. Consensus is that the article is too promotional and needs to be rewritten from scratch to be properly balanced. If someone wants to give it a shot, any administrator can provide a copy of the references used in the article. Aervanath (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Freedom Debt Relief

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't see the sources presented in this article adding up to WP:NCORP. Those that are not directly tied to the company or company filings with government agencies are of questionable independence. BD2412 T 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)  BD2412  T 02:27, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep and stubbify. Reuters says it's "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider" and it had some high-profile run-ins with the CFPB. There's also some discussion in, a paper in a minor law review. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:16, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider" is notable. Often mentioned and or quoted as a leader in the industry. Lightburst (talk) 13:30, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, discussed in books, news articles, and even scholarly academic articles. Right cite (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. I believe this company might be notable but for completely different reasons than available in the article as will shortly become apparent. The article itself is entirely promotional and has been whitewashed of all negative details. For example, while some of the Keep !voters above have repeated that the company are "the largest U.S. debt settlement services provider", this claim was not made by Reuters but instead is contained in this CFPB announcement which Reuters reported on and which throws a completely different light on the settlements than the whitewashed version in the article. There are almost no negative details in the article and what hints exist in the article are so obfuscated as to hide any fact of wrongdoing on their part. Also, while Rite cite correctly links to a list of scholarly articles, the very first paper is entitled "Federal Oversight of the Debt Relief Industry: A More Effective Means of Deterring Illegal Debt Settlement Schemes" and says
 * Freedom Debt  Relief  provides  a  fitting  example  of  a  debt  settlement company that, despite being an AFCC accredited member, is mired in disputes with  consumers  suing  the  company  over abusive  and  deceptive practices. Freedom  Debt  Relief  settled  a  class  action  lawsuit  filed  by  Washington’s Attorney Generalby paying over $800,000 to about 570 Washington consumers who used Freedom’s services. Freedom settled a similar case in New York for about $1.1 million. Freedom Debt Relief has also settled lawsuits in Colorado, Rhode  Island,  California,  and  Delaware. Additionally,  Freedom  Debt  Relief makes it even harder for consumers to know who they are actually dealing with because it has multiple registered names under which it does business
 * Based on the above quote and the numerous other examples included in the list, this article is beyond salvage and needs to be deleted until such time as it can be rewritten from scratch. As it stands, this article is promoting a company mired in controversy and more dangerously, perhaps deliberately misleading consumers into forming a non neutral opinion on the company.  HighKing++ 20:32, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Since the last relist there's been some strong opinions both ways, and I don't think the status quo of the article is really going to satisfy anyone. Further input to reach a consensus would help.
 * Delete Not sure how this article was missed for deletion earlier. I think it is basically advertising for the service and not noteworthy on Wikipedia. Msw1002 (talk) 06:51, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca  talk 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | [babble] ||  16:32, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The WP:PROMO tone is so insufferable even in the sections where states took action against them, that there's no hope of rescue here. In order to keep this, someone needs to remove the horrid tone and restore neutrality to this copy.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:19, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree this is basically advertising for the company. Didn't check their website, but wouldn't be surprised if some was cut and pasted directly from the site for the article. Some of the sources may be acceptable but many just don't seem reliable. Rivertown (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete The sourcing is horrible and it's clearly an advert article that would likely be close to impossible to write probably in it's current form. So, WP:TNT applies along with this not meeting the notability guidelines. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:47, 2 November 2020 (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.