Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 global banking crisis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. I have ignored the "hold fire" !votes, for the reason that that is turning things on their head: we wait until a subject is notable to write an article, we don't let an article on a non-notable subject linger around to have a look at it later. Basically, a "hold fire" !vote acknowledges that at this point in time, notability is not met. Once those !votes are removed from the equation, I find that the "delete" !votes have the stronger case. Randykitty (talk) 13:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023 global banking crisis[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

2023 global banking crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested WP:BLAR. The article is essentially a WP:OR/WP:SYNTH that combines the March 2023 United States bank failures with the single Acquisition of Credit Suisse by UBS in order to create the novel conclusion that the 2023 global banking crisis emerged in March 2023. Examining the sources does not provide coverage of this event as being some top-level banking crisis that is affecting the entire globe, and this article should be blanked-and-redirected to March 2023 United States bank failures#Broader impact as an inappropriate WP:CFORK that endorses the particular point-of-view that there exists such a thing as a "2023 global banking crisis". While such a crisis may emerge, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and we cannot make articles on events that have not yet occurred. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 16:56, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The nominator has merely asserted that, not made a compelling case. This article is not a "WP:CFORK that endorses the particular point-of-view", as asserted by nom. It is not a POVFORK as the other article is explicitly about several U.S. bank failures, and had Talk page discussion at the time that the Credit Suisse and the Swiss government angles on the crisis were explicitly out of scope for the U.S. banking failure article. Further, when the article was created (old version 20 March), there were multiple sources that called it a "banking crises" that included both U.S. and European banking systems, one source that called it a "global banking crisis," and another that referred to banking regulators attempting to shore up the "global banking system."
  • Delete : It does seem like a case of "too soon" and synthesis. The sources provided state things like "prevent a crisis" or "US, global crisis" so it's not clear that it's really a crisis at this point, nor is it necessarily global as the sources provided clearly state that Asia is mostly unaffected. BirdValiant (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain, the article has many references that agree with an event that is taking place, for which the article in question must be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.244.210.196 (talk) 03:56, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month. Given high global inflation, supply chain bottlenecks, Ukrainian-Russo war, et al, it may just be waiting for the next domino to fall for the global financial system to fold akin to 2008, which has a reasonable possibility as advanced economies are still accelerating interest rates despite the strain on banks and businesses. 92.9.45.55 (talk) 20:40, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no basis to peer into a crystal ball and hold this on the off chance that a domino might fall and actually cause this. Either sources exist that are describing an ongoing global financial crisis, or they do not. In the latter case, this topic is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH, and it would make no sense to keep the page in mainspace. I've yet to see any arguments for the former. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 22:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month. Same reasons as above. Johnson.Xia (talk) 22:03, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought I would add more information to be previous deletion support:
We now have a couple of articles which denote the more fearful scale of the looming financial crisis:
  • Bloomberg is saying that the Federal Reserve has to choose between a hard recession and an inflation crisis.
  • Financial Times is also saying that the Federal Reserve has to deal with a looming credit crunch (which for me seems to hark back to the tone used during the Great Recession)
This is primarily a US banking crisis currently for the following reasons:
  • There have only been notable bank runs and pre bank runs on American banks, except for Credit Suisse which was experiencing trouble stemming from its US headquartered investment banking unit (First Boston) well before the US banking crisis flared up. If you were to plot the incidents on a graph then the Credit Suisse debacle would be viewed as the exception and statistical anomaly, stemming from issues that had been discussed well before the current US banking crisis.
  • The spillover of the banking crisis also seems to be limited to the western world except for notable but not exceptional stock market changes. There have been numerous articles explaining the strength/stability of the banking systems in Asia especially in China, Japan and Singapore... If there were a notable spillover of the banking crisis, it would probably be limited to the western world, and only recession may somewhat overspill into Taiwan/Japan/Korea (as it did with the Great Recession).
  • It also seems to be a shortage of US dollars that are fueling the fear of the credit crunch. The central banks of Asia have been less aggressive with interest rate hikes and hence there is more liquidity available in various other currencies. India and numerous of other countries have also made significant efforts to diversify away from the USD in the wake of the Russia-Ukraine war, so there is also less likelihood of the Sri Lanka style crisis because US dollars are now less used in Asia.
Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think it is better to have a single article covering the wider banking crisis because
  • The banking crisis seems to be affecting the Western World at its greatest extent, with market shares being messy but not particularly note-worthy. There have been a few articles stating that Asia is doing fine:
  • If you were to plot the banking crises on a graph, the UBS buyout would be the anomaly and outlier, and hence it would not result in the creation of a "global" banking crisis.
  • The initial controversy at Credit Suisse was at its First Boston subsidiary HQd in New York, which may have then spread to the rest of the bank, but it originated in the US. While there is a global link, it is still a substantially US problem. UBS is planning to mostly shutter the First Boston operations.
Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 10:01, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Septemberisnottheseptmonth:Do you want to keep this article?--Johnson.Xia (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I want it to be deleted! Septemberisnottheseptmonth (talk) 04:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am inclined to agree with you on the reference but it served a point. The situation is more nuanced than a yes or no - we only have the CS collapse which was due anyway, but the US article doesn't indicate much about the effect globally and the link with liquidity problems caused by the bond market. French banks got hit for example. I'm minded that there should be two articles and don't wish to see this page deleted for now. Cheers Thelisteninghand (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, impacts on a global scale can be mentioned in March 2023 United States bank failures#Broader impact. Sungodtemple (talk • contribs) 20:56, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for a month Credit Suisse is not out of trouble yet. Like people have said above, there may be more dominos to fall.PatrickChiao (talk) 02:00, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is only the second major global banking crisis after the one in 2008. And the present crisis is indeed affecting many countries of the world. It only remains to be seen which other dominoes are going to fall. There can be no other outcome than to keep this article. Telekvin (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not to mention what is happening with Deutsche Bank right now, this is certainly not a US only situation and to pretend so is absurd. However, I also don't think it is accurate to call it a crysis yet (although much better than outright deleting the article), perhaps the article should be renamed to "2023 global banking crisis fear" or something like that until a non-US bank actually collapse. KristofferR (talk) 15:02, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with the article about the US banking crisis, which should use the title of the current one. The global banking system is very interdependent and it's a crisis that already spread outside the US. PhotographyEdits (talk) 15:22, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just updated this article with more of today's news and should point out that there would be absolutely no place for it in the US article. It isn't the case that any of this can be described as US only. Thelisteninghand (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Thelisteninghand I think you misunderstood my point. I think that there should be a single article titled "2023 global banking crisis", which should include the US cases and the one in the current article. But since the US article is the biggest I think it would be best to merge the content of the global article in the US one and then rename the US one to global. PhotographyEdits (talk) 16:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agree that's an option. Cheers. Thelisteninghand (talk) 16:16, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Central banks say that the system is solid and that there is no contagion, but the facts say that every day a new bank emerges that is in difficulty or under stress. A case opened today in Deutsche Bank resulting in a downturn in the European market. There are now many banking cases. Peter39c (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge that's my vote. Just updated on Japan. The crisis can be seen as correction levels of losses in banks I would say. Thelisteninghand (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is Wikipedia, and we don't censor for political reasons. While central bankers and president's may say the system is sound and things have calmed, Wikipedia should simply explain encyclopedically whatever verifiable sources are reporting about it. And use the common names. Here are what sources in the article are saying:
So it is a "banking crises" and it is "global". No AfD is warranted. But if someone wants to change the name, that is an entirely different discussion and does not require article deletion. N2e (talk) 18:37, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@N2e @Red-tailed hawk - I've boldly added links to the articles I assume are being referenced above. I haven't done an in-depth read through them all but a cursory look doesn't change my opinion. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:23, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can suggest alternative names here, but I am mindful not to let Wikipedia become a rumour mill, because one big mistake and our reputation is at risk. --Minoa (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Redirect I agree completely with Red-tailed hawk's analysis. A fair amount of SYNTH has been used to justify this as a coherent topic. Many of the keep votes above are WP:CRYSTALBALL with a dash of OR. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article mashes together unrelated banking news stories from 2023. The vast majority of keep votes are making unsubstantiated assertions that it is a single event or predicting that it will become one. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 04:58, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the assertion that editors are "mashing together unrelated banking news stories.." Here's Reuters doing same: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/ecbs-enria-says-deutsche-banks-selloff-is-concern-2023-03-28/ Prices for Deutsche Bank's credit default swaps , have eased since Friday but remain far above levels preceding the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank There is absolutely nothing 'unrelated' about the citations in the article. Thelisteninghand (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hold fire for at least a month. Some indisputable facts: There exists quite evidently a widespread banking crisis. It is, at least for the time being, claiming most of the notability about economic and financial crises. These are facts. On the basis of these facts, having text independently informing users about the banking crisis unarguably serves tyhe encyclopaedic purpose of the project. In a few weeks or maybe a couple of months, a merge could well be the preferred option. Both in terms of Wikipedia as well as the well-being of finance. -The Gnome (talk)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2023_global_banking_crisis&oldid=1147209028"