Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BMO Nesbitt Burns

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. After two relists by @Missvain and Northamerica1000: there is consensus here that BMO Nesbitt Burns has met our general notability guideline and our additional notability requirement of WP:CORPDEPTH. As written, the references provided in the article do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH; however, given the age of the company and in consideration of the offline sources available, it is highly unlikely this company would fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Having said all of this, there is some emerging consensus here to merge-ing with Bank of Montreal, particularly as the article was (a) substantially edited by a (likely) COI-conflicted editor in BMOnesbittburns and (b) it's had nearly two decades to shed its stub-class status (or de facto stub-class status), with Mindmatrix even noting a merger is a possibility and it's a reasonable assumption that nom Skeletor3000, who favours deletion, would be amenable to a merge, which can occur at Talk:BMO Nesbitt Burns or at Talk:Bank of Montreal outside of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMO Nesbitt Burns[edit]

[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)

Non-notable client group of Bank of Montreal. The only coverage I found were mentions in bio articles about former employees and the typical legal action announcements. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge any articles related to its predecessors into it (eg - Nesbitt, Thomson and Company). Those predecessors should have plenty of offline coverage. Another option is to redirect to BMO Financial Group and expanding the predecessor articles, which should also point to the appropriate subsection at BMO Financial Group (either in the text, or in the see also section). Mind matrix 15:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, there is good coverage of its predecessors, Burns Fry (see notes here,here and here about its CEO, Latham C. Burns) and Nesbitt Thomson (see entry here). Jogurney (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I've added an number of sources that go into lawsuits, settlements, and other non-routine corporate developments related to legislative changes, etc., enough to pass CORPDEPTH by most standards I would say. If not keep for some reason, then merge and keep the useful info. JamieWhat (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (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.