Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Bengal State Coop 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. Noting that the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are now no arguments for deletion or redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

West Bengal State Coop Bank[edit]

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

Delete No indications of notability. Searching for references does not reveal any that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:50, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am not convinced by the nominators comments that there are no indications of notability, it exists and is licensed as a bank by the reserve bank of India, which I would argue is a good start. There are not many banks around, and it has existed since 1918 in a non-English country with limited internet sources, so the state of the article is unsurprising. Regarding the sources, it would seem(?) that there is a fair amount of usable sources in Bengali. See পশ্চিমবঙ্গ রাজ্য সমবায় ব্যাংক and the numerous news items at "West Bengal State co-operative Bank" (note the title uses coop as a short form of co-operative, which would appear to be incorrect). But alas the font support on my PC is not coping well with these sites and I am relying on the google translate, this could use some attention by someone else. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 16:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC) — WP:SOCKSTRIKE[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing indicates that WP:NORG criteria are met.--Rpclod (talk) 02:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - checked the Factiva database, there are multiple articles written about it, including some in The TImes of India - but mainly in Indian Media. The fact it is a bank established in 1918 - also important. For instance:
- "West Bengal co-op bank to step up recovery drive". Business Line (The Hindu), 30 April 2009, -
- "BENGAL STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK TOO WILL FUND KRIBHCO-SHYAM'S ACQUISITION PROJECT (of acquiring the urea plant of Oswal Chemicals and)" Indian Business Insight, 16 January 2006,
- "HEFTY DUES A WORRY FOR CO-OP BANK" Hindustan Times, 25 April 2013
- "Co-op minister rejects black money claims" The Times of India - Kolkata Edition, 26 November 2016
- Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please post links to the references, not all show up on a Google search for me. But, of those that did, none meet the criteria for establishing notability. They are either based on company announcements and fail WP:ORGIND or are passing-mentions and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the bank is mentioned in all the titles, which would normally indicate the banks is the subject of the article. Sorry, I would post the links if I could, but these Newspapers articles are from the Factiva news service, they aren't from Google. Its not free access, you'd have to see these newspaper articles on a news database, if there is one at your local library or University? Deathlibrarian (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - True, the bank is mentioned in the titles, but a high number of articles that have the name of the company in the title don't meet the criteria for establishing notability. The criteria isn't whether they've been mentioned in articles or even if they are the "subject" of the articles but whether the articles are intellectually independent and in-depth. For example, articles based on company announcements or that rely extensively on interviews/quotations with no independent analysis or opinion fail the criteria for establishing notability. From the articles I've managed to find, as I've said above, they fail the criteria. The titles also suggest that a number are based on company announcements. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think there is much in English on Google, however, there is plenty in Indian sources. There are 45 articles in Factiva, (searching "West Bengal State Cooperative Bank") and many of them are discussing the bank directly. All these refer to the bank in the title, and the articles are substantively about the bank.
        "WBSCB adding ATMs, reducing NPAs" Banking Frontiers, 16 June 2014, 1674 words, (English)
        
        Nabard exposes Bengal co-op bank scam The Statesman, 25 November 2012, 366 words, (English)
        
        WB Coop Bank criticises govt stance on mortgaged properties The Press Trust of India Limited, 13 March 2012, 365 words, (English)
        
        Ambedkar Jayanti a Working Day for State Co-Op Bank The Economic Times - Kolkata Edition, 15 April 2011,*****
        
        Banks plan soft car loan for WB govt employees The Economic Times, 30 April 2009, 417 words, (English)
        
        NABARD enters into a co-financing agreement with WBSCB The Economic Times, 21 April 2009, 306 words, (English)
        
        West Bengal co-op bank seeks RBI nod to open branches in 3 districts Business Line (The Hindu), 17 April 2009, 383 words
        
        UPA LOAN WAIVER SCHEME BAILS OUT WBSCB (by reducing its NPAs in the agriculture sector) Indian Business Insight, 8 May 2008, 75 words, (English)
        
        WB State Cooperative Bank expansion plans hit The Press Trust of India Limited, 24 March 2008, 234 words, (English)
        
        State cooperative bank fails to get NABARD licence. The Times of India, 27 March 2000,
        
        Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Hi, of the ones you've just posted that I can access, none meets the criteria for establishing notability as they are based on comapny announcements - of the ones I can't access the headlines strongly suggest they are also based on company announcements. For example, the "WBSCB adding ATMs" article from Banking Frontiers is based on a company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND. The "Nabard exposes Bengal co-op bank scam" reference does not provide any in-depth information - similar articles such as this from indiatimes and this from The Telegraph meet the standard for inline citations but fail the criteria for establishing notability and fail WP:CORPDEPTH. The "Banks plan soft car loan" reference fails as it is substantively based on PRIMARY sources (interviews/quotations) and fails WP:ORGIND. "NABARD enters into a co-financing agreement with WBSCB" (not attributed to a journalist) is based on a company announcement and/or quotations and fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. The "West Bengal co-op bank seeks RBI nod to open branches in 3 districts" is based on a letter written by the chairman to the RBI and fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. In 2012, Performance Analysis of Indian Cooperative Bank was published and meets the criteria. In addition, it seems likely that other sources exist as per WP:NPOSSIBLE. Thanks to Deathlibrarian for his persistence and for pointing out some offline resources. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:56, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- HighKing, excellent nomination. Deathlibrarian, excellent upgrade. Good use of the AfD process.--Rpclod (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2018 (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.