Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CardRates.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. Essentially, nobody agreed that the search result presented by Steevven1 returned any sources that could be used to show notability. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CardRates.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

In my opinion the page does not qualify for

WP:VER. One source [1] is a blog with a trivial mention of the subject. One is a page on a independent, but sponsored chamber of commerce website [2], which serves as the basic descriptor of the subject. Other sources cite the subject's own website ([http://www.cardrates.com/scholarship/] [http://www.cardrates.com/about/]), or are third party sources with content sponsored by the subject ([3]). That leaves the Forbes sources, one of which [4] only mentions Cardrates.com as a past employer of the writer of the article (note that this article is produced by Forbes/nextavenue, and is written by contributors, labeled as *Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own* by Forbes), while the second [5] is attributed to the current CTO of Creditrates.com and is likewise created by contributors not employed by Forbes. In short, no verifiable sources, claims that could be read as adverts, and lack of notability qualify the article in question for deletion. SamHolt6 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep: SamHolt6's argument may possibly justify the insertion of the {{ third-party }} tag, however, I see no evidence that the article reads like an advertisement, nor that the subject of the article is entirely non-notable. I have just added an additional independent source and piece of information which assists in showing notability, in addition to cleaning up and improving the article altogether. Also worth noting: A Google search reveals HORDES of other sites (including some high-profile ones) linking to this site. It has certainly gained some significant recognition. Steevven1 ^{(Talk) (Contribs) (Gallery)} 00:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:30, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:01, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 05:58, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The nom is absolutely correct on this one, and although the article itself doesn't read like an advertisement, all of the sources really are. I did a search in books and in Google, and although
WP:RS. Nomader (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references in the article provide any significant coverage of this website in independent, reliable sources. This debate has been going on for three weeks and nothing that shows notability has come to light. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article content is promotional in nature.
talk) 05:16, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment While I understand that this had been relisted 3 times, (and depending on which en.wiki cult you are initated in that is 1-3 relists to many :)) niether HazardBot nor the final relister addded the "Afd debates relisted 3 times or more" category, which is watched by a multitude of editors. If this can be relisted, or closure delayed a few days, we may be able to get some eyse on this for better consensus. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write) )evidence( 01:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.