Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Real Bank

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 keep. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Bank

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. The only link is the company's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While not publicly listed, the bank is notable, having been covered in several third-party sources (see this, this and this). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 12:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- And you didn't add these to the article because...? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, I don't know, because doing so will disprove your point that "Oh, I'm doing this because of notability and not because of cleanup"? Or, to be serious about it, because I'm trying to manage all the other articles you put up for AfD, and I'm only one person? Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:43, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - And let me repeat this again: If I wanted it cleaned up, I would have tagged it as such--not nominated it. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like the nominator Raykyogrou0 is posting all the created articles by Sky Harbor to deletion without even seeing any sign of notability of any article. This is not an healthy symptom. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 15:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- First of all, I'd like to point out that this article was created by someone else entirely. Second, I didn't see any notability which is why I nominated it—--the only link in the entire article is the bank's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - And, to repeat a question that has been asked on some of the other AfDs, you didn’t bother searching outside because…? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 01:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello, I did. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      - You make this claim throughout a number of the AfDs (in particular the PostalBank AfD). You asked how you weren't being "thorough" with your search in the Banco San Juan nomination, right? Here's your answer: it looks like you weren't being thorough at all, providing general search engine results without even bothering to put up the pretense of actually parsing through them to find material relevant to the bank. Heck, you didn't even bother narrowing the search to filter out links not relevant to the Philippines, nor searching elsewhere (Google News, Philippine newspapers, etc.). How come then I (and other editors, mind you) was able to find data that proves as to the notability of this institution, whereas you were unable to? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 10:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        If so, where are these alleged links proving this bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:59, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - as with the other 20 banks. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any actual arguments? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 17 January 2014 (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.