Talk:Credit Solutions of America

Recommend retention

I strongly recommend that this page for Credit Solutions (aka Credit Solutions of America) be retained because:

+ It has nothing to do with a previously deleted page called "Credit Solutions"

+ Credit Solutions or Credit Solutions of America claims to be the largest debt settlement company in the US.

+ The company is the subject of at least four lawsuits by Attorneys General in four US states for its false and deceptive business practices. By more information on this company readily available to the public, consumers can be better informed of the issues involved in debt settlement and in possibly dealing with this firm.

+ The company has been featured in many national and local news media including ABC News (http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7932088&page=1), Dallas Morning News, Chicago Tribune and many others, about its financial services.

Thank you. Myk60640 (talk) 14:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the speedy tag, but I am not sure that the page meets the WP:ORG, so others may try other delete options. Codf1977 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Company edit

FYI, based on my research of an IP address from which this Wiki article was deleted on March 31 at 4:42pm (see below), a computer registered to Credit Solutions of America was used then in an attempt to remove the Wikipedia article about the company. I guess they don't like having the public learn about their questionable business practices.

See edit made:16:42, 31 March 2010 64.219.161.13 (talk) (456 bytes) attack}}

Myk60640 (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Writing as a member of the Credit Solutions organizations

I am writing as a member of the Credit Solutions organizations, following the FAQs listed by Wikipedia when one believes an article on their organization is an attack. As a new Wikipedia member, I appreciate your consideration.

After reviewing the article primarily written by Myk60640, there are several causes for concerns, namely an appearance of a lack of Neutral Point of View.

• Background:

Myk60640's juxtaposition of Credit Solutions' reported success rate and comments by the NY Attorney General and Better Business Bureau cases seems to be done to imply a falsehood on Credit Solutions' results. However, Myk60640 does not state that the statements by the NY Attorney General have not been found valid in court, nor does the author reveal that all but 6 of said BBB cases have been resolved with the customers. [1] Such omission of fact distorts Credit Solutions active resolution of customer concerns.

While listing the 2007 award from JD Powers and Associates (a well respected organization), Myk60640 does not list the over 20 other awards honored to Credit Solutions, many for customer service [2]. The author also fails to mention Credit Solutions' ISO9001:2008 certification.

• Controversy

Myk60640 fails to report that none of the claims made by any of the Attorneys General have been proven to be valid in court. Such an omission creates a negative implication.

• Media Coverage

While describing the ABC News Nightline piece on Credit Solutions, Myk60640 fails to mention many claims made in the report turned out to be grossly inaccurate. In fact, one of the main claims, that the customer in question did not receive any settlement offers, was proven to be irrefutably false. Credit Solutions made public a video highlighting the negative impact and false claims of the Nightline piece, complete with evidence. [3]

• Lack of Positive Aspects

Myk60640's authorship fails to mention many of the substantial benefits and positive works done by Credit Solutions. Such work includes founding "Credit Solutions Cares" a charitable organization which, through Credit Solutions employees, friends and families, donated over 7,000 hours ad raised over $16,000 in 2009.

• Previous Instances of Author's Lack of Neutral Point of View

A summary of Myk60640's Talk Page reveals multiple examples of using sensational sources and POV postings.

We wish to abide by Wikipedia's processes. However, this article appears to have been created strictly for the purpose of portraying our organization in a negative light.

Texasbiker02 (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Interesting that yesterday Texasbiker and his/her compatriots at Credit Solutions tried to improperly delete the page on March 31, and today are trying to seek revisions in the proper way. Too bad that they didn't start this the proper way to begin with. 24.148.73.133 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

I am not sure that this artical deals with the company in a fair and ballanced way, two much is made of its court cases. Codf1977 (talk) 21:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I shortened copy and reduced emphasis of Controversy section to make more balanced yet retain the key facts. Let me know what you think. Myk60640 (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I think two much is still made of the Court cases. Codf1977 (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The statement in the article "Credit Solutions will collect a $1500 fee upfront" is both inaccurate and unfounded. Credit Solutions does not collect an "up front fee", and the source cited by My60640 does back up the claim. The source only states "Credit Solutions charges a flat fee of 15 percent of a client's total debt.", the article does not imply or state any fee is charged "upfront". Texasbiker02 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)