Talk:College Confidential (company)

Untitled

Yoohoo..any CCers here? QuizQuick 03:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bleh, me. I just wish that Wikipedia could have some respect for anecdotal evidence, seeing that it can lead to interesting insights/hypotheses. Simfish 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article overhaul

I removed a great deal of material from this article, the vast majority of which was uncited, unverifiable/original research, or unencyclopedic, reducing it to a stub. I think this article could easily be deleted as non-notable -- I can't find any commentary on the website from an outside source -- but this will do for now. Dylan 23:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I'm going to {{prod}} it anyway. Dylan 23:39, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've contested the prod (after it was deleted, though, making it a bit of a hassle). The site's Alexa ranking is currently about 10,000, and used to be around 2,500. That's very good- this site isn't non notable, though the article could be better. Also, not all of the information you removed as unencyclopedic, so I reverted and slapped a cleanup tag on there. --Rory096 21:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered back here today, and there was still a ton of original research and unsourced opinion lying around. I went through and did another cull, this one more discriminating than the only mentioned above. If you want to revert any part of the cull here, please make the case for including specific material here, because although the blanket revert done in August may have saved legitimate material, it saved with it a whole lot of unacceptable stuff. Dylan 02:44, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Could someone please provide some reliable independent sources regarding this forum? Wickethewok 20:39, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reinstating old revision

A few months ago, I cut the article and revised it to reflect NPOV and notability. It was reverted by an anonymous IP. I noticed today that the article still had some POV issues and didn't accurately describe the site well; CC is a college admissions company foremost, and its forums, while popular, are incidental to the organization's purpose.Exeunt 05:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok that makes more sense. Wickethewok 08:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Google search on "College Confidential" yields just 227 unique hits[1][2][3]

Many of those hits were for a 1960s movie of this name
Others were for the random phrase, such as "...2006-2007 University College Confidential Information Form required for all part-time and ahead students..."[4]

I'm getting upwards of 230,00 results, and you can also get a sizeable chunk by googling "collegeconfidential" ( http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Collegeconfidential&btnG=Google+Search ) As a freshman in college, I can tell you that almost every suburban ivy-league aspirant has heard of college confidential. Also, upwards of 3 million posts on the forum seem to suggest a substantial level of notability. 66.171.9.100 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I mean, I actually affirmatively dislike the site and the way it's run, but I maintain that it's notable. Seriously, they're just unkind, but still notable. Deletion of this would be unreasonable. Ante lan ^talk 04:03, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Media references:

Passing mention in the Washington Post. (1 sentence)
Article in the Yale Daily News. [5]
- Does a college newspaper article count for notability purposes?
One paragraph mention in the National Review Online[6]

--A. B. ^(talk) 22:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More references

NY Times article on their 'stats evaluation' service ([7])
NY Times article mentioning the site in its first paragraph and throughout ([8])

Ante lan ^talk 05:09, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those articles are about College Confidential. In both cases, the website is mentioned in passing as one example of a class or group of similar websites or services. That doesn't mean these references are meaningless but they don't carry near as much weight or utility as an article about the site. --ElKevbo 06:49, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From WP:Notability - "sources address the subject directly and no original research is needed to extract the content. It does not require that a topic be the sole focus of a source." I don't see any criteria dealing with the "weight" or "utility" that you have invoked, so I think these sources are just fine. Ante lan ^talk 21:34, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're bad sources but I'm not sure that they "address the subject directly." I fully acknowledge that there is significant wiggle room in the current notability guideline (is it still a guideline? I've lost track in the WP:ATT ongoings...) and this appears to be subject to interpretation. It's okay if we hold different opinions! :) --ElKevbo 22:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, it's definitely OK. I've looked over some of your recent diffs (sorry if this is stalking) and I agree with your positions in general, but I feel that this site is notable in general. As mentioned above, I dislike the site but still feel that it's notable. Our different opinions are just fine. Ante lan ^talk 04:51, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People willing to contribute

Sunday, March 30th, 2008 10:30 PM CST As according to this thread on CC: http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/college-confidential-cafe/483843-calling-all-ccers-cc-wikipedia-page-needs-some-drastic-improvement.html, a major overhaul is planned for this page. I am ruca. Identify your CC screen name below if you're willing to contribute. Thanks!

I'm available to help if needed. Same name as on CC forums. IVinshe (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on College Confidential (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120724014320/http://www.collegeconfidential.com/about.htm to http://www.collegeconfidential.com/about.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:32, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]