Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BankFinancial FSB

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 delete. Sources are king. If nobody can locate the sources needed to meet WP:GNG, even after looking for them, then the presumption that they must exist is no longer valid. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

BankFinancial FSB

[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)

Serves as a listing for "nineteen full service branches," which skews the publicly-traded corporations criterion into an advertisement for the former. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH, Wikipedia is WP:NOTYELLOW. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Yogiile (talk) 11:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether or not this sounds like an advertisement, WP:LISTED explains that public-traded companies are generally easily sourced. The links above seem to point in that direction.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - It's a NYSE-listed company, as noted above, which makes me inclined to keep. However, while a search throws up plenty of references, they all seem to be essentially 'investor-pick' type comments on the stock price, and appear on slightly questionable-looking financial news sites/blogs. I can't find anything in a source that I consider fully reliable, but on the other hand I think there's so much available as to be worth the benefit of the doubt. The article certainly needs substantial improvement though. Hug^syrup 11:32, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Listed is only a note saying that usually listed companies have some sources about them. I looked and also couldn't find them. Since nobody else succeeded, this should be deleted, keeping in mind that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is a bad argument at AfD. If we can't find them, then it's time to treat this as a regular WP:YELLOWPAGES WP:CORSPAM. Finally, considering how little there is in this substub, lists listing companies traded at NYSE and such are perfectly good as far as informing the raeder that such a company exists, since our article, and available sources, hardly allow to say anything else. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would also presume most listed companies are notable. However, I can't find what I would even consider run of the mill coverage from the Chicago Tribune let alone something which establishes notability. Searches for other RS also comes up short. While most are notable, some, apparently like this, are not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 19 September 2019 (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.