If the company is trading as Bank on Dave, surely that is the WP:COMMONNAME (official names notwithstanding)?
I have corrected this, if it was a problem - it is a difficult concept to convey as their are several different names and straplines or slogans being used for the same thing. Bethia Thomas (talk) 15:25, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hedwig in Washington, so far as I can see this article meets all of the notability criteria. Its creation was followed by a internationally aired documentary, because it is a community-based, non-profit, banking alternative. It also seems to be the product of numerous editor's contributions so I can't see a significant COI issue either. If you can explain what you are seeing that I'm not maybe I'll get involved here. Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Reads like a flyer you find under your windshield wipers. Just noticed it and tagged. --Hedwig in Washington (TALK) 23:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Thanks Trappedinburnley. The article is based on a trawl of a relevant articles after the documentary Bank of Dave and has just rewritten what was already there, taking out some fallacies (see below). It does in a way promote a new kind of banking or lending, but that is what the documentary is about - and quite a few people, myself included, think it is a good thing too. :-) Bethia Thomas (talk) 15:31, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
- Bethia Thomas If you where watching closely you will have noticed that I didn't dispute the advert tag. This article has some issues that need attention and if I find to the time to get into it properly I will get involved. However two things to remember here are:
- The Wikipedia community is very sensitive to businesses using the site for promotional purposes and ordinarily a business of this size and age would not be considered sufficiently notable to qualify for an article. It has an article because it is unusual and that needs to be clear to readers or it will keep running into issues, including possibly being deleted.
- On this site it is preferred that articles contain correctly sourced fallacies rather than unsourced truths. Of course verified, accurate, and interesting (in that order) is the ideal.
- Hopefully you have time to do more yourself.Trappedinburnley (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hi there - I have noticed that some issues have been raised about the Burnley Savings and Loans article. I re-wrote the article basing it very closely on the existing entry, correcting a few well publicised fallacies about the company and Dave Fishwick himself. I have done this through research of relevant sources, and have removed unsubstantiated claims. As an alternative to mainstream banks it has a very positive following in the media and with the public at large, and it is very difficult to get away from the positive 'hype' generated from this when you are writing about the company. That said the included references do have positive and negative spins on the concept of this form of banking. Bethia Thomas (talk) 15:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply
.svg){kind=small}
