Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banco Filipino

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Banco Filipino[edit]

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

Lots of unverified claims, notability not established. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Company is notable but clean-up is required. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all articles tagged for deletion/PRoD by Raykyogrou0. Seriously, what's your standard? Banks like First United Bank or Susquehanna Bank are clearly not notable in their own right, but they're not being tagged for deletion. The bank articles you've nominated for deletion, at the time they were made, were and still are notable in their own right (Banco San Juan was the largest rural bank in the Philippines; Export and Industry Bank was the bank that bought out Urban Bank when it failed, and then it failed; the Philippine Postal Savings Bank is the national postal savings system; and Queen City Development Bank is the largest bank to be based in Iloilo City, a city of 400,000 people). If this is your way of forcing improvements to articles, you could have at least been a little more courteous and tagged them for cleanup instead of having them deleted. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 13:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re. I'd like to point out WP:COMPANY, which says that a company is considered notable "if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Have they been? I haven't seen any. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:04, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to point out that Sky Harbor is the creator of this and many of the other bank articles I prodded. Makes sense he would want to keep them. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The lonely two references are "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Could certainly add a lot more help, but by those two alone it is certainly enough. –H T D 02:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could be a little less condescending. Me making the article(s) in question should have no standing on my position vis-à-vis requests for deletion. (Also, again, what's your standard? A number of the articles you PRoD-ed/AfD-ed, including this one, are/were publicly listed companies, and to quote WP:COMPANY: "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." So yeah, methinks you were overly hasty with nominating for deletion.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 03:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re:@HTD:Is it though? Those two sources talk about its closure in 2011. A majority of the article has not received verification from sources since 2008 (the tag). I mean you could go ahead and add refs but if this article is kept, most of the sections will have to be removed. @Sky Harbor:I'm not being condescending. It's just that when you are the creator of the article you may have a conflict of interest. You are of course free to express your opinion, but still. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AFDs are about sources and less about the article; as long as the sources reliable, and are actually cited in the article, it doesn't matter if the article is one sentence long. As for the sources, the sources are about the bank and isn't trivial, so as long as the sources stay there, and actually cite a passage from the article, it's an easy keep. Remember, AFD is not cleanup; if you want a cleanup, you could've just tagged this with a relevant clean up template and not wasted our time here. As per COI, anyone can comment on an AFD, even article creators; they are even encouraged to do that. WP:COI is into people who are directly connected with the subject of the article; so unless someone is directly connected to any of the banks (like I'm a branch manager IRL), we wouldn't be discounting opinions. –H T D 05:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to see any references added to the article, (i.e. it has not been improved since this AfD started) so how is it considered notable? Like I've said before, those two references only talk about the bank's closure. Because you have seen it on the local news? I'm just going to say this, but the article has been tagged since 2008 and nothing has been added to establish its notability since then so should we just take your word for it? (and ps. by "conflict of interest", I wasn't actually referring directly to the wiki policy WP:COI.) Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm saying is 1) the two references in the article are enough to establish notability, 2) whether the news articles are about the bank closure (or opening or anything else about the bank) is immaterial, as long as it satisfies WP:RS, it's good, and 3) again, AFD isn't cleanup. Now As per local news, this isn't merely "local news" or "news from Manila", this bank has branches elsewhere, so it's national news; it's actually one of the most notable bank failures in the country. It being tagged since 2008 is immaterial, as long as AFD is concerned, since it's notable from the get-go, even with those two lonely references. –H T D 12:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you are so concerned with sourcing and improving the article, Raykyogrou0, why not be bold and actually improve the article yourself, rather than wantonly nominating it for deletion? --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search didn't turn up anything relevant enough to establish its notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

why didn't you search in Google Books? Then you need to cease immediately from all PROD and AFD activity for a couple of months and spend time sourcing the articles instead. Seriously In ictu oculi (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"A simple Google search" would give you too much noise, and crap, TBH. That's my last resort if Google News, Books and Scholar turn up empty. Google News also has 6 different reliable sources from last month. Good thing this propped up by the news in mid-December; the news was actually a "boring" one. The "exciting" ones happened in the 1980s when it was closed illegally. –H T D 19:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A major economic player with lots of coverage in reliable sources. Google News is, sadly, no longer useful for something like this, but basic Google and Google Books searches reveal numerous news stories, and a HighBeam search turns up more than 130 potential sources [1]. Did the nominator take note of WP:BEFORE before nominating this? --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Easy keep. "Banco Filipino" (with quotes) turns up 1,940 Google Book hits. The Rappler news website has 4 news stories about this bank, with all four articles solely about the bank per se. Too bad the website started only in 2011 when this bank has been the subject of court cases for decades now. –H T D 02:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Has received a lot of reliable coverage. Anecdotally, I can remember seeing much about the bank and its closure back in the day (it was one of the bigger news stories at the time). Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 09:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - Google Books. Further Keep all 20 plus Philippines banks tagged for PROD and User:Raykyogrou0 to add one source to each article. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:32, 15 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.