Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AU Small Finance 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 no consensus. Killiondude (talk) 23:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AU Small Finance Bank[edit]

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

Article had no sources when I found it. I added one, thinking that perhaps a ranking on the Fortune 500 might give some indication of the subject's notability. There are some sources that might be usable to verify some uncontroversial statements, but there is no significant in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. Most of the potential sources I found are rehashed press releases. Mduvekot (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Searching under previous names, I think there is enough just about enough coverage ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]) that don't look like straight reprints of press releases Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:33, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Border line either way - note that this is the Indian Fortune 500, but I'm not even sure that it's publicly listed and traded. If the above references check out and there were accessible financial statements showing that this was a real company, I'd be much more at ease saying keep. But checking the company's website (almost no info there) and this article, I can't even tell if it's real. Probably, but ... Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:16, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? There are numerous - 100s - results of articles in newspapers considered RS (though perhaps reprinted press releases), and it had an IPO a year back ish IIRC. [9] is its profile in reuters, showing it trading on the bombay stock exchange Galobtter (pingó mió) 17:23, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you've done a lot of work on this. If you'd like, please check out the sources in detail and then write it up. That way we could all be able to tell if it's notable. I'm not personally interested in being part of WP:BOGOF. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST, I checked out the sources and selected the best in a list, the only reason I put any effort to finding sources because it didn't look like it was paid work (though it is possible that it is) Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable. Complete lack of "significant coverage from independent, reliable sources". Searching for news shows occasional references to the company as a banking entity but routine discussion about what a corporation does as it's 'job' doesn't equal significant. Macktheknifeau (talk) 15:01, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've linked the best coverage in my !vote, I don't think its all routine or non-independant, you can examine them if you like - not going to argue more if you disagree Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Per Galobtter.Notable by a mile.Good sources~ Winged Blades^Godric 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As with any public listed company, particularly Fortune 500, it's easy to find sources with this bank's name in the headline. I added three citations. This is a commercial bank with hundreds of branches (maybe that should be in the first paragraph). Jack N. Stock (talk) 03:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe WP:LISTED is established. There's plenty more: you might own some AUBANK shares and not know it, but relax because Morgan Stanley says it should be a good investment. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:22, 17 March 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.