Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sampath 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. (non-admin closure) —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sampath Bank

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

Unsourced article about a Sri Lankan bank. All but two of the article's sources (before I gutted the unsuitable sections) 404 out, and the other two are PR and a PDF from the bank itself. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:03, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So, basically, what you are telling us is, you have removed dead links from the article, and then you have opened this AfD because the article was unsourced? If that is so, can you take a look at WP:KDL and WP:NEXIST, do a little bit of WP:BEFORE, and withdraw this AfD? Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have taken this to AfD if I could find any usable sources. Another thing worth noting is that articles with bad sourcing and bad format, as this one had, are generally used by new COI users as an example of how to write a Wikipedia article. I generally don't AfD a page unless some COI user on -en-help is trying to use it to justify their own unsuitable page and the article itself is not up to snuff. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:00, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I myself was going to consider deleting too, since I myself searched through and through at news sources, but never found nothing even one for coming close to substance; there has essentially been nothing suggesting we can keep these with guaranteed improvements. SwisterTwister talk 04:09, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A quick review of GNews and GBooks results convinces me the bank is sufficiently notable. --Michig (talk) 06:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A bank with over 200 branches would seem to be notable. Reportedly, it is the 9th-largest company by market capitalization on the Colombo Stock Exchange. [1] There do seem to be an adequate number of news sources to justify having an article. Granted, the article needs some work to tone down the promotional aspects, but that can be dealt with through normal editing. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Metropolitan90 above, and also the substantial discussion of the bank's rise to prominence in this book. And another book says this and another bank are "considered as the pioneer Internet banking service providers in Sri Lanka" which is a reasonable claim of notability. Presumably more could be found in other languages/scripts, but even just in English language sources there is sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. AllyD (talk) 07:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep would agree with other users - satisfies WP:NBUSINESS. Dan arndt (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 14:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- I see enough in Google books to suggest that the bank has been sufficiently covered by independent reliable sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:13, 5 September 2016 (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.