Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finco Services Inc

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 no consensus. Sandstein 06:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finco Services Inc

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

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

Unable to find

independent content, GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GermanKity (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is pretty vacuous promo blurb (we don't need to know board membership, patent applications, etc.!) and the sources are all primary. That said, there are a couple of articles in WSJ 1 2, the latter of which says the company has 2M customers, so might be more noteworthy than appears at first. There could be more sources to be found by searching with the trading name 'Current', but that's quite a tricky search term, of course. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article survives the AfD, it should be moved to 'Finco Services' without the 'Inc', per
WP:NCCORP. Or perhaps it should be moved to 'Current (bank)' or some such instead? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 11:18, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. The "in the news" section of company's website shows plenty of coverage. Some articles are just mentions, but they have been the main focus of several CNBC and WSJ articles. JBchrch talk 11:34, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide

WP:THREE. GermanKity (talk) 12:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

1. Wall Street Journal, Current Joins Mobile-Banking Boom With $131 Million Tiger Global-Led Round, [1]]; 2. CNBC, Digital bank Current sees ‘insane’ growth during pandemic [2]; 3. CNBC Digital bank Current triples valuation in five months to $2.2 billion after Andreessen takes stake [3] Middleground1 (talk) 16:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street Journal is an announcement/PR about the company hence failed

WP:ORGIND. GermanKity (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Author's comments and questions

Thank you sincerely for starting this discussion. A couple comments on the above comments, and this is not to at all to be contentious – more of a learning op for me and explanation of what was going on in my head.

I guess my first question is how this might not be neutral. I agree with the comment that listing its board members is dubious. I was on the fence. Ultimately, I decided that if the place is privately held and privately funded, and it’s also being run by venture capitalists, a researcher might want to know that. (Full disclosure – I did not research the venture cap firms, it just seemed like the right call to back up the privately funded thing).
As for sources, I was careful to check that the third-party sources weren’t just cribbing from the company’s own press releases. I think that Dunn and Bradstreet, CrunchBase, Bloomberg, the United States Patent Office and the Security and Exchange Commission are credible sources. As for Yahoo! Finance and Financial Letter – well, perhaps I should have investigated their credibility, but I seem to see them used a lot around Wikipedia.
As for moving it to a page that doesn’t have the “Inc” – all for that. Looking around the web, I couldn’t even get verification as to whether there was a period after the “c” … Moving it to “Current (bank)” is the best idea, but I didn’t think that a subsidiary (in this case Current) could have a page when a parent company (in this case Finco) doesn’t.
As for patents, I’d be up for removing it. My reason for including it was twofold: first, this company is apparently among the emerging group of “fintech” organizations, which to my understanding are a combination of financial services and software development -- and there should be a mention of how they are in the software arena; second, their patent pending is something I’ve never heard of before – individuals being able to make money from selling their personal data just as corporations have been selling for eons without giving customers a cut. I’ve heard debates about that, but never stumbled upon a patent application for something that does just that. So, it seemed valuable. Sidebar: it's really not out of the ordinary to mention the assets of a financial institution, including intellectual property.

Well, I didn’t set out to do a promo, I can really attest to that with complete honesty. Two days ago, I saw an ad for them on the NYC Subway and wondered who they were, looked them up on Wikipedia, and they weren’t here, and then I saw online that they have millions of users and half a billion dollars in capital. So, I figured I should investigate further and give them an article here. I have no idea if they are a credible (as in good or bad) organization, but they seem notable.

Should you choose to delete, that’s fine. If you don’t, I’ll continue working on it. But either way, please, if you will, let me know where the thinking I wrote out above was flawed. Maybe the article is horrible, but I want to learn where my decisions and logic was off. I want to contribute more here, and rely on feedback. Middleground1 (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per
WP:PATENTS the patents can be used as a RS in the context of the invention they describe. They don't support the notability of the owner. CrunchBase is not a RS. Anybody can register a CB profile and publish unverified information. I recommend removing CB and adding TechCrunch [4] Dr.KBAHT (talk) 21:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with
HighKing⁺⁺ 20:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. has WSJ coverage here. You can't get any bigger coverage than WSJ. Peter303x (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- We are also required to look at the content and NCORP guidelines requires that it meets certain criteria. An article that relies entirely on an announcement of funding and a short interview with Mr. Sopp and without providing any independent analysis/opinion fails to establish notability, regardless of which publication it features in. Every sentence in that article is attributed to either the company or to Mr. Sopp therefore it fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 15:34, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seddon ^talk 20:08, 19 June 2021 (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.