Contents

Talk:Borro Private Finance

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Borro Private Finance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 April 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Finance & Investment Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance & Investment, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance and Investment on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Finance & InvestmentWikipedia:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentTemplate:WikiProject Finance & InvestmentFinance & Investment articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Companies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Companies To-do: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes Maintain : Portal:Companies Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs Other : Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner Answer requests for comments

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

I appears to me that the most accurate way to describe the business this company does is a pawnbroker and I have added this link a few times to this article. It is a clear from some of the references that the company does not like this term and there have been a number of attempts to remove this from the lead. It may be this is from users that have connection to the company. To make sure we keep a WP:NPOV it would be good other Wikipedia editors could comment on whether this term describes this business and is fair in this context. Sargdub (talk) 19:29, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from individual talk page as more appropriate to discuss here:

Please stop editing the page. The company does not operate like a pawn broker, it operates like a secure lender that uses collateral to determine the value of the loan. I ask you kindly to please stop editing the page and focus on another topic.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedichee (talk • contribs)

Please note that everybody is free to edit pages on Wikipedia which is a key tenet of the Wikipedia. Even your own explanation is exactly what a pawnbroker does. I see you keep removing the pawnbroker term from the article Borro. Having looked at the definition of Pawnbroker this is exactly what the company does, it makes loans based on taking goods as collateral. I suspect that the company does not want to use the term in its marketing because of its image but that does not change the what it does. If you have a good reason that pawnbroker is not suitable description please discuss it on the article talk page and try and get some consensus from other editors. Saying stop editing the page is not a good reason. I am not sure if you are in anyway associated with the company but if you are please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest before making any edits. Sargdub (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 26, 2018: Hi Sargdub, I apologize for maybe handling this a bit inappropriately. When you say that my explanation is exactly what a pawnbroker does, I'd argue that it's exactly what an Asset Based Lender does. Taken from wikipedia: "Asset-based lending is any kind of lending secured by an asset. This means, if the loan is not repaid, the asset is taken." A 'Collateral Based Lender' also applies here. Taken from wikipedia"In lending agreements, collateral is a borrower's pledge of specific property to a lender, to secure repayment of a loan.[1][2] The collateral serves as a lender's protection against a borrower's default and so can be used to offset the loan if the borrower fails to pay the principal and interest satisfactorily under the terms of the lending agreement." I'd say that these two descriptions are even more pertinent than the Pawnbroker one. Thanks, looking forward to your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedichee (talk • contribs) 16:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cedichee, I understand your rational and happy to have both terms linked in the opening line, but I still feel that pawnbroker is the better description. I appreciate that the company does not want to categorize itself as a pawnbroker because of the perceived negative connotations but this is not a criteria we need to consider. However, given we are at an impasse I think we need a third party involved to resolve this so have copied our conversation to the talk page and I will list it for comment. Sargdub (talk) 03:24, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes - Pawnbroker is a term that describes this business and is fair in this context. We go by how reliable sources describe this business and there are plenty of sources to verify the description of pawnbroker - CNBC, Reuters, Forbes, Business Insider, Bloomberg, Entrepreneur, Wall Street Journal, CBS News, The Guardian, New York Post, Crains, BBC, Fox Business, Independent, HuffPo. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes as used by realiable sources above. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not so simple... At first this debate reminded me of when ads for car dealerships started using the term "pre-owned" instead of "used". However, I think it's important to recognize that new business models and other innovations often introduce a change in nomenclature. And it's understandable that innovative businesses want to differentiate themselves from the more traditional "old school" industry. The word "retailer" is appropriate for a brick and mortar store, and not for an online ecommerce site. When the business model of retail went online, such as with Amazon, people would say "online retailer", to convey a new business model. Then the term evolved to etailer. If someone says they work in retail today, it means a brick and mortar store, not an ecommerce site. It is not reasonable say BPF is a straight up "pawnbroker", because that implies a store where you bring the personal items to secure the loan. This is a new and innovative business model. It is of course understandable that people would call this an "online pawnbroker", because that describes the business in terms that people understand using common vernacular. When you say a company is a pawnbroker it has brick and mortar connotations that don't apply to BPF, such as walking into the store and seeing all the stuff people hocked that is now for sale. That aspect of pawnbroking isn't part of the BPF business. Also BPF will make loans with boats as collateral. That's why a Borro spokesperson said "We lend more than a pawnbroker". She is comparing their business to the pawnbroking industry. The problem is that with BPF, as with many new business models, the new nomenclature, doesn't take right away. In this case, BPF uses "personal asset lending", but people don't know what that means. It's appropriate to use "personal asset lender" to describe the new business model, even if BPF invented the term. They innovated in the market and named their new innovation. Eventually this may become the vernacular. At the same time, saying "online pawnbroker" makes sense to help readers understand the new business using older terminology. That's what the sources are doing. To me the right course is to use new terminology in the introductory sentence: "Borro Private Finance (previously known as Borro) is a UK-US-based personal asset lender that offers loans secured on luxury assets." The term "online pawnbroker" can be used later to describe the business in lay terms, as opposed to defining the business that way. To insist that BPF is inarguably a pawnbroker is in my view incorrect. Coastside (talk) 04:51, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, I think that Coastside sums up the point I've been trying to make this whole time. While describing the company as an "online pawnbroker" may help the average person understand the company and how it operates better, saying defiantly that BPF is a pawnbroker is incorrect - as Coastside has said. The fact of the matter is that BPF uses an innovative business model and completely rebranded and changed the way the business operated last year. Look at the older references in the media, the company isn't called "Borro" anymore, and the business has completely changed the the way it does business. Companies are constantly innovating. Cedichee (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand that businesses innovate and want to market their innovation with new nomenclature, it is not Wikipedia's purpose to assist in promotion of its use. Instead Wikipedia should reflect the terminology and language currently used in reliable sources; and only adopt new terminology once it has entered general vernacular by being used by reliable sources, not before. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 00:27, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Pawnbroker is an ok term to me. At Wikipedia we only follow what the sources are using, and until there is a newfangled name for this type of lending and the sources accept it, then let's just use the good 'ole term we have been using even clearly the article's subject PR department doesn't like it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Only if used in RS. If a reliable source calls them a pawnbroker, so be it. If only one RS refers to the company as a pawnbroker, I would not use that in the lead, as the media at large in that case doesn't prefer the term. If there is just a tiny bit of support, mention it in the body of the page with context, such as source A refers to the company as similar to a pawnbroker. Otherwise, we have no place making up corporate classifications ourselves. 68.129.252.188 (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes as used by realiable sources cited by Isaidnoway. Pincrete (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes per the WP:RS cited. Adoring nanny (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes Asset-based lender - as used in this page - seems to be a branding or marketing phrase. The outline of the company's services qualifies it as pawnbroker. The term asset-based lender is also repeated in the body so once consensus is reached, they need modification for consistency. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:17, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support use of term pawnbroker as it is well supported by reliable, published sources. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Yes That term is applicable HAL333 20:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Preserving here by providing this link; pls see edit summary for rationale. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Came here in response to the RFC above but clearly cant understand what all the fluff and trivia, some of it unreferenced that is "In the Media" most has no relevance to understanding the company. Either delete or a serious cull is required but as a "drop by" user perhaps the regulars can perform the surgery on it. MilborneOne (talk) 11:42, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Concur, trivia at best.Pincrete (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also concur, and would go as far as saying that the whole section should be deleted. Whilst I appreciate the effort it would have taken for this list to be put together, the reality is that it adds nothing of substance to the article. Any material which others deem should be preserved should be integrated in the History or Services section(s): if it cannot be so integrated, then that is an indication that it is not relevant for the article. DMew92 (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "Routine news reporting ... is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." As such, this section should be deleted. If there are any events of enduring notability covered by these media reports then they should be included in the History section. 203.10.55.11 (talk) 00:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]