Talk:Clubfinance

COI removal
If nobody objects, I will now remove the COI tag. I've added details of reported acquisition and the rest is objective and neutral in tone. Marktristan (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Launch of Self Select Insurance
In June 2014, Clubfinance launched a site to sell insurance products on a direct to consumer basis as per this article. If someone other than me could add some information on this to the article, that would be handy! Felixaldonso (talk) 00:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This section is now resolved, and is kept only for reference: after its initial deletion, the article was recreated, and the article was subsequently nominated for speedy deletion, however the conclusion of the discussion below was to keep the article.

This page has been recreated, having addressed the issues raised prior to its deletion, namely:
 * references are now to articles covering the company in its own right.
 * this article hopefully sounds less "like an advert" (If it is still felt that this is a problem, I would welcome suggestions to further reduce this issue).
 * it is not an unreasonable assertion that the company is as notable as the company pages that are linking to it. Felixaldonso (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

This page should not be speedily deleted because it satisfies the requirements for CORPDEPTH, has several specific references to articles that refer to this particular company exclusively, the article is no more worded like an advert than other similar companies such as Bestinvest or Hargreaves Lansdown, and companies that it has bought significant portions of are deemed notable enough to have their own mention (Intelligent Money and Ivan Massow). I would welcome some constructive feedback as to how to improve the article. --Felixaldonso (talk) 23:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you connected with the company? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am, however I do not believe that that alone should invalidate the contribution. Felixaldonso (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I didn't notice that it was due to be deleted (I haven't logged in for some time), but hopefully the more direct references should resolve the WP:CORPDEPTH issue mentioned. Felixaldonso (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't even have created it as you have a conflict of interest. How can we be sure you have written from a neutral point of view if you work for them? Philafrenzy (talk) 23:41, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relatively simply - is anything in the article factually incorrect? The existence of the company is verifiable on companies house, its directors are easily found on CompanyCheck, the references are from 4 separate independent sources.  If there is anything unverifiable, feel free to delete it, but I have deliberately avoided adding any fluff for the precise reason that you mention. As someone related to the company, I could write much more, however that would be unverifiable, therefore I have not. In fact, the only sentence that is not factually verifiable with a trivial google search is that it was run out of a bedroom for three years, so please delete that sentence if it is the problem, rather than the whole article. (Though if you pay to download the accounts from Companies House, that sentence too will be borne out by the registered address...). WP:AGF much? Felixaldonso (talk) 23:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't throw AGF at me when you have flouted one of our basic principles through editing with a COI. From the way you write it is obvious that you are well aware of how things work around here but perhaps you don't take our rules seriously? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Define COI - Ultimately, I do not stand to gain anything material from the existence of this article - I only said that I was related, it is not like I am one of the directors, nor am I in fact an employee. One may as well ban english people from writing about England - they will undoubtedly be biased, however they are also the most likely people to have accurate information, and have an interest in keeping the article up to date. Felixaldonso (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please state openly your connection with the company. Are you being paid by them directly or indirectly to work on this article? Philafrenzy (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not being paid to work on this article. I work in the same building as them and I have used their services. The company that I work for also contracts out certain administrative functions to them. Incidentally, "from the way I write", it can only be deduced that I am trying to abide by Wikipedia's principles. Evidently I am succeeding in some areas, but it should be clear from my contributions that I am neither the most prolific nor regular contributor. Felixaldonso (talk) 00:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I restate my earlier question though - is anything in the article factually incorrect? I understand the desire to ensure objectivity, but objectivity can be achieved without deleting entire articles. If there is a specific complaint that you have about something in the article, and you don't want to edit it, let me know and I will be happy to. Felixaldonso (talk) 00:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you could reasonably be seen as having a conflict of interest. There is clearly money involved in the situation you describe, possibly indirectly. Please read WP:COI. You shouldn't edit the article directly. Please place here your suggestions for any changes you feel are appropriate and another editor will make the changes. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:40, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I completely understand your position - I am happy to make no further edits to this article. Thanks for making the changes to make the article more neutral. Felixaldonso (talk) 12:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)