Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Springs State 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 delete. There is consensus that this article is not currently suitable for mainspace. What is unclear is whether anyone plans on actually working on it in draft space. While it's very true that it's not required, a stale draft just kicks the can down the road six months. That said, if someone intends to work on it - no need to go to refund. I will restore it to draft space. Just ask. Star Mississippi 03:27, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Springs State Bank

[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)

A Google search returns Wikipedia mirrors and no real in depth sources about the bank. Suggested merge and redirect to Farhad Azima or Global International Airways. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Kansas. Grey Wanderer (talk) 15:46, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Earlier today I deprodded this article and left an indication in the edit summary that I could improve the page with sourced information but I had to go out and couldn't do it immediately. So thanks for not waiting and giving me a chance to do that (which I will now put on hold until it decided whether this is to be kept}. This book and the Oversight Hearing here and [1] between them provide references for most of the material removed from the article (by the nom) in this edit as unreliably sourced. There is also scope for further expansion from those two sources. This book, although basically an art book, seems well researched and has a lot to say on the connection between the Indian Springs bank and mobsters over several pages. If you don't like that one try books with a more political theme [2][3][4]. In short, there is plenty of material out there to expand the article. SpinningSpark 16:30, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Spinningspark, thank you for taking on improving the article. I can tell you wrote the above in anger, don’t forget to assume good faith. Firstly, please strike out your false claim that I removed any content from article. The edit you have linked was not me. Secondly, I took you quite literally in your edit summery, you left no indication you planned to return, if you had done so I wouldn’t have nominated the article so quickly… so that too seems to be misleading at best and for the sake of integrity ought to be struck through. Either way, sarcastic “thank yous” aren’t constructive. We’re all just trying to build a better encyclopedia here. Grey Wanderer (talk)

Looking at the sources above, I see a lot of ~~what may be~~ WP:Fringe, an inappropriate primary source, possibly self-published books, and some trivial mentions (your first one is one short paragraph in a 300 page book which also has some pretty out there info about the apparent connection between Freemasons, the New World Order, the Illuminati, George Bush, and Nuclear Weapons). If these are the best sources available then at the moment it doesn’t look to me to demonstrate the bank meets WP:GNG. It’s a bit alarming to see an Administrator link such blatantly unreliable sources. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your main mistake appears to be spelt out in the first three words of your nomination. Why on Earth would you expect to find reliable sources about anything, but particularly a bank that failed in 1984, on the web? Search in books and academic papers for reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:02, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for incorrectly identifying you as the deleting editor. You are right that I posted in haste and may not have been too careful in choosing sources to list. I wanted to post my thoughts before there were any pile-on deletes to this discussion. However, I think it is worth you looking again at Inside Job: The Looting of America's Savings and Loans [5]. This was published by Open Road Media, a republisher of old books. It was originally published in 1989 by McGraw Hill, a well known reliable publisher. The original edition can be borrowed from IA here if you have an account. The bank is discussed from page 98 onwards and continues to be referenced for the next 20 pages or so. You weren't explicit in what you meant by "inappropriate primary source" but I suppose you meant the text from the Oversight Hearing. It's certainly not inappropriate and primary sources can be used with care in articles. The very fact that the bank was discussed at such a hearing is evidence of some notability. It could be used for quotes and undisputed facts, but not for drawing conclusions. SpinningSpark 14:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That one source seems to be an ok start. Forgive my suspicion but given the quality of the other six sources I didn’t spend much time investigating the original publisher of that book. However, we will need multiple sources to establish notability, if you find some I will withdraw my nomination. The primary source is inappropriate because WP:GNG explicitly states sources used to establish notability should be secondary. Am I misunderstanding this? I am flummoxed as to why you would think there wouldn’t be any sources on the web considering you have only provided sources on the web. As you know the minimum search expected before nominating requires more than just a basic Google search, so I’m not sure what my “main mistake” was but if I’ve made others please tell me so I can avoid repeating them in the future. I’ve never been particularly active at AfD, and I know policies can change.Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't confuse me with Spinningspark. We are different people. You only addressed in your nomination a Google web search, which for just about any subject, notable or not, finds mostly Wikipedia mirrors and unreliable sources. You did not address your findings from searching for reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:04, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that! I see now you are not the same. I’m still confused as to where I made a mistake? I did my due diligence per WP:AfD step D, as required before nom. If more is required please link a policy so I can learn. Perhaps you thought I just did a basic Google search? I will be more specific next time before I nominate something. Since Wikipedia only uses reliable sources why would you assume that’s not what I’m talking about in the nom? Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Draftify, if Spinningspark is willing to work on it. Of the two current sources, neither is significant coverage of the institution (the AP article is about the owner, and only mentions it several times). Searches on Google books did not turn up enough to meet GNG. Newspapers.com might be a promising area to look, there are hundreds of hits. However, of the 50 or so I looked at, all were simple mentions or advertisements. It would take time to wade through all the articles and see if there is enough there.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 18:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 22:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found one mention ("In the Kansas indictment announced yesterday, Mr. Renda and others are charged with defrauding the Indian Springs State Bank and Coronado Federal Savings and Loan, both of Kansas City, of $7 million in unsecured real-estate loans after brokering deposits into the two institutions.") in NYT. Ebsco has more:
Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022

Margolies, D 1990, ‘Defendant in bank fraud case returned to Kansas City’, The Kansas City Business Journal, vol. 9, no. 4, p. 11, viewed 24 October 2022,

Ringer, R & Fraust, B 1984, ‘A tale of brokered deposits and a busted bank; FDIC blames tie-in arrangements for failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas’, American Banker, vol. 149, p. 1, viewed 24 October 2022

All of these (and others) turn up under the search, but whether that results in the bank itself being notable is up for discussion, IMO. Lamona (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Currently lacks in-depth coverage to meet WP:NCORP, however it is plausible that such sources exist if a user is keen to do the hard yards. MrsSnoozyTurtle 23:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd draftify this article with more assurances that it would be worked on.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Hi Liz: Yeah, drafification here may be the way, but at AfD, I feel that it's inappropriate to request any users to obligate to work on the article as a requirement for draftification. Part of the notion here is, so if nobody obligates themselves to improving the contents, then would you instead decide to delete, sans said obligatory improvements? Sorry, but it typically doesn't work this way. This is a volunteer community, not a job assignment community. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely add the material and sources I have found if the article is kept. If it goes to draft, not so likely it will be me doing the work and then having to implore some spotty kid of a reviewer to allow it after all of 32 seconds of attention. Either we have found enough to meet NORG or we haven't. If we have, then WP:NEXIST applies and the article should be kept. SpinningSpark 13:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Spinningspark:. I found a relevant policy at WP:NCORP: WP:ILLCON. Arn't all of these sources about the bank's alleged crimes? If so, then I can’t see how the bank meets notability. Grey Wanderer (talk) 14:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
However, the organization may still be notable, in whole or in part due to such sources, under different guidelines, e.g., WP:CRIME. SpinningSpark 16:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am a bit confused by that part; help me understand. Doesn't WP:CRIME only apply to biography articles? Besides, isn’t it best to follow the guidelines for organizations and companies since that is what we are dealing with? Do any of the sources you've found deal with the company outside of it's criminal activity and subsequent failure? Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, that bit confused me too, but the guideline only gives CRIME as an example, not as the only guideline that may apply. The basic point I think is that the illegal (or unwise) activity may itself be notable separately from the organisation. That kind of implies that the article should be structured (and possibly named) around that activity rather than structured as a regular bank article. If CRIME were not specifically in the NBIO guieline, it would certainly apply in this case imo, and remember, a bank counts as a juridical person. SpinningSpark 17:41, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm food for thought at least, I'm learning some things. If the company is "notable under different guidelines" don't we need sources that discuss the bank outside of it's criminal activity? I'm looking at sources like the news story above that describes the "failure of small shopping center bank in Kansas." Is a small shopping center bank notable? The only interesting thing about the company is its criminal activity, which according to WP:NCORP "can't be used to establish notability". Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

North America, I didn't expect my relisting comment to obligate anyone to working on this article in Draft space. I understand that we are all volunteers. I guess what I was trying to get at was that Draftifying was an alternative to Deletion. I've found in the AFDs I review, sometimes editors get into a Keep vs. Delete mindset and forget about alternatives like Redirecting, Merging or Draftifying. It might not have been my place as the relisting editor but I just want to encourage participating editors to consider alternatives beyond Keeping and Deleting. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as per the arguments above, none of the references meet NCORP criteria for establishing notability, give Spinningspark an opportunity to improve in Drafts. No biggie if it doesn't work out, Drafts will get deleted after 6 months in any case, or hopefully this topic will be returned with adequate referencing. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:53, 6 November 2022 (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.