Talk:Dave (company)

D-prod

I have little sympathy for companies which manage to pass GNG due to an effective PR team, and even less sympathy for editors who create one line stubs which then can't be deleted if the subject is notable. Personally I'd be for adding a requirement in the AfD rules that for sources to count towards GNG or any other N criteria, they need to be in the article and the article expanded, and stubs are draftified.

That said, this company passes GNG and ORGCRIT with full mentions in TechCrunch, BankRate/ X2, Bussines Insider/X2/X3, NBC, LA Business journal/X2/X3/X4/X5, Forbes/including a mention in its "25 next Billion dollar startups". This is excluding (I hope) all their press releases and any reprints of these stories in other outlets. These aren't just routine coverage. I'll leave this here for a bit, see if anyone disagrees. Hydromania (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hydro, I'm sorry you feel annoyed, but I'm not sure I fully understand. You don't like that I created an article, because you don't think they're notable, but they meet the notability criteria? Or are you more annoyed with me because I just created a one line stub at first, and I haven't [yet] fleshed it out? McKay (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry if I came across as too harsh, my comment wasn't directed only at you. The truth is yes, I don't like when editors create one-line articles and drop them for other editors to take care of. For example in this case, you created the page 10 days ago with only one line, and haven't come back to flesh it out (I added some basic info, more than doubling it, and it's still not a full article). Why not prepare the article first and then post it? or create it in draftspace until it is ready for mainspace? This way causes a bunch of tedious and frustrating AfD discussions, where the article as is fails GNG (for example) but isn't deleted because the subject is inherently notable (as an editor will often prove by posting sources). We then continue including, in this great encyclopedia, pointless uninformative stubs which no one plans on fixing.

All that said, I was contesting the PROD/deletion nomination of this article as I believe it to be notable, providing the sources to prove that. You are welcome to remove the tag yourself, anyone can contest a prod. Personally I didn't remove it in case @Piotrus: wanted to respond.Hydromania (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional sources. You are right that in light of what you found prod should be removed. An AfD may be justified; I am unsure. I'll review the sources you found and if I decide to proceed with AfD I'll ping both of you. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps there's something I grossly misunderstand, but I fail to see how "the article as is fails GNG", or even [when I originally wrote the stub https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dave.com&oldid=923690564]. I claim the original stub had multiple, independent, reliable sources. "Why not prepare the article first and then post it?" Because I felt the stub had some encyclopedic value to others, and I personally didn't have time to create a full article, and now, a week later, the article is a lot better, and now CLEARLY passes GNG? Yes, others have helped, and I'm grateful for the help, but I don't see why a less-than-full article is worth removing from wikipedia. You complain about time that an AfD takes away from editors, well don't start an AfD then? Maybe it's just inclusionist vs deletionist debate, but I don't see any good reason to remove the article now. It's not going to win any awards today, but it's worth inclusion. McKay (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 22 March 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved to Dave (company). There was a clear consensus against moving to "Dave", but there was consensus for moving to Dave (company). Note that the nom changed the target near the end of the proposal and was in agreement. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

---

Dave.com → Dave (company) – My name is Sandra and I work for Dave, the article-subject. I'd like to ask that the name of the page be changed to just "Dave" without the ".com". The company's legal name is Dave, Inc. and the company used to go by Dave.com, but the company changed its name to just "Dave" (see here), which I believe is now the "common name".

Though some sources have used the legal name Dave, Inc.[1] or the old name Dave.com [2] more and stronger sources use the new name of just "Dave" (see CNBC for example).

Thank you in advance for your time considering my proposed change. Please let me know if I am using the wrong process, as I don't believe the move is controversial, but this seemed like the closest match for a COI request. Snguyen118 (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment — The basename (of just the title "Dave" on its own) is already taken up by a disambiguation page. I would recommend changing the request to be to "Dave (company)". Paintspot Infez (talk) 19:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move. Obvious conflict-of-interest situation. O.N.R. ^(talk) 19:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Comment the COI of the editor is fully disclosed, and them discussing this on the talk page is 100% the right and appropriate way to handle this rather than trying to directly edit the article or move it. Not sure how there being a COI is a policy reason against the move as a result. Canterbury Tail talk 20:15, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  There is no conflict here. You're still very much allowed to make proposals even with an interest, especially a declared one. As a reminder, "conflict of interest" is not the same as "interest". If she were closing a discussion about Dave, or editing the page in a way that (cough) conflicts with our policies, that would be a conflict. Red Slash 20:20, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose, not the primary topic. No objection to Dave (company) or similar. 162 etc. (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Dave? Dave's not here. But Dave (company) should work. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose as clearly not the primary topic for Dave, but looking at the disambiguation page, nothing stands out that would make a move to Dave (company) a problem. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:00, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do this right now OK, when I saw this I couldn't resist !voting this way. But nonetheless, I agree that a move to Dave (company) is the best option. Daniel Case (talk) 05:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Obviously Dave (TV channel) is the primary topic! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC but I'm fine with Dave (company). --The Tips of Apmh 12:48, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC don't care about Dave (company) or Dave inc. i wonder when 'company.com' will return as something charmingly retro—blindlynx 16:12, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose the company is clearly not primary given the rapper has 76,039 views, the TV series has 17,947, the TV channel has 4,778, the singer has 860, the episode has 695, the surname has 451, the given name has 385, the musical has 174, the tool has 78, the artist has 50, the town has 19 and the technology demonstration has 9 while the company only has 938[[3]]. The given name probably has more long-term significance No comment on moving to Dave (company). For the record the disclosure COI seems appropriate and comments that simply oppose because of this are not appropriate. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Very clearly not the primary topic, there is the TV show called "Dave" as well, the name, et cetera. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:53, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Comment: I am the original poster. As "Dave" is already taken, "Dave (company)" makes sense and is the apparent consensus. I have revised the original request to "Dave (company)" as suggested by @Paintspot:. Snguyen118 (talk) 21:04, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support Dave (company) per modified nom. I'm glad to see that Snguyen118 went about this the right way by taking it to RM and to see the response. A closer should view most of the "oppose" !votes as being in favor of the disambiguated title. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:51, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Change in article structure

My name is Sandra and I work for Dave (company), the article-subject. I feel the overall structure of the page is out-of-sync with Wikipedia's norms. It describes the company's services at the very beginning, instead of starting with history. It has a very short Funding section, though Wikipedia's manual of style discourages short sections and that could be consolidated with the History section.

I'd like to suggest the page be restructured such that there would be just a Corporate History section followed by a Services section. Snguyen118 (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

What you've proposed here is not a bad idea. Do you have text you'd recommend? I'll take a look at the page when I have some time, and perhaps make some changes, but if you have some text that you think is appropriate, put it in the talk page (or a link to text in your userspace), and I'll consider incorporating it. (And a ping on my talk page wouldn't hurt.) McKay (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mckaysalisbury. Here is what the page would look like after incorporating the restructuring proposed above and some additions/updates (indicated in bold) to the content of the page. Let me know if that's what you were asking for. Snguyen118 (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I've incorporated many of the requested changes in the history section. I didn't feel the work from home section seemed to fit very well, especially as it's fairly internal, and feels like undue weight. I'll mess with the services later. McKay (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I incorporated many of your requested changes, for the other edited section. McKay (talk) 23:11, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Mckaysalisbury:! I went ahead and added a logo to the infobox, corrected a stray bolding, and consolidated one-sentence paragraphs. A couple things I wanted to ask about. I noticed there were a lot of red-links, many of which are on topics unlikely to ever have a Wikipedia page. Do you mind if I remove the red-links? Also, the introductory sentence says "pay $1 a month for $100 in overdraft fee protection". I'm not sure if including pricing (which is subject to change) makes sense? Snguyen118 (talk) 18:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

A few comments / concerns:

1. paid editors, like yourself "are strongly discouraged from editing affected articles directly", I'd recommend reading through WP:COI. Given your initial comments here, I suspected you already had. But given your most recent behavior, I'm now suspecting you haven't. The process we were following before of proposals and someone else editing is the recommended process. (Most of your edits are non-concerning, so I won't be addressing them below unless I had a specific issue with them)
2. You uploaded a logo, and incorporated it into a page without a Fair-use rationale. I'd recommend reading through WP:FUR. A similar link is present on the image you added.
3. The bold was not "stray". It was in accordance with the Manual of style. MOS:B#Article_title_terms. I will be reincluding it.
4. Redlinks are encouraged, if an encyclopedic article could be made on the subject. Whether or not creation is "likely" I believe is irrelevant. See WP:RED. "Only remove red links if Wikipedia should not have an article on the subject". For the new redlinks I recently added, I believe they're appropriate. If you disagree, I would love to understand why you think the articles in question should not exist.
5. The pricing is potentially interesting to those who are reading it. And it appears to be cited. Why do you think it's inclusion doesn't make sense? If it's just timing, we could add a note expressing a time. Would that resolve your concern?

McKay (talk) 19:30, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

@Mckaysalisbury: No problem. I thought I was making an uncontroversial edit pursuant to WP:COIU. In that case, do you mind reverting the recent vandalism that broke the infobox?

Regarding the price, that's correct about the information being out-dated. It could be replaced with more up-to-date price, but WP:NOTCATALOG #6 seems to discourage including pricing as promotional, unless strong sources have meaningful commentary/analysis on the pricing. If you think pricing should be included despite WP:NOTCATALOG #6 I can try to find a more recent source with correct information. Thoughts? Snguyen118 (talk) 20:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've fixed the incorrect good faith edit that was not vandalism. McKay (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You made a good point about WP:NOTCATALOG. I've removed the prices from that opening paragraph. McKay (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

didn't check whether there was discussion before editing

I see that there has been a lot of discussion about the structuring of this article. My goal in making my edit was to make it clearer above-fold in plain language what this business' main service is. I think the revision to the header(?) text makes this clearer. But I see that moving the description section to above the history section was actually a controversial decision that might be stepping on peoples' toes. Likely to take another pass at revising the article soon; happy to move history back to the top if desired. My goal is just to make it easy to figure out what the service *is* rather than merely to find secondary traits or goals or motivations for providing or using the service. Nyuuposting (talk) 15:20, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

A company representative and then later an account that appears to be the CEO of the company are editing the article to remove references to what so far as I can tell is the main function / value proposition of the company / app: cash advances. As a result the article header says things about the characteristics of the service ("tips rather than overdraft fees") without saying what the service is. The first section, titled "Services", has the same issue: it does not say what service this company provides, it just talks about secondary characteristics (tip-based, etc) of the intentionally (as it appears the CEO is removing references to it) unstated service.

I am re-adding the plain-language description of what I understand the product to be. Unless it is incorrect, it should be in the article. It can be expanded on if it is an incomplete description. Nyuuposting (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I have new phone number

I have a new phone number to send you 2600:6C5C:6000:14C5:1D42:C3CA:F8CE:362B (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)