Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First United 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First United Bank[edit]

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

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. First ref only lists its assets. The second says the bank donated to a school. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –H T D 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Umpteenth reply: And what makes you think I didn't perform a simple search? And where are your sources proclaiming this particular bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't speak for User:Howard the Duck, and I am not sure of your definition of "a simple search", but I do not think for any of these 20 banks you performed an adequate search because of the following three indications:

(1) the speed between prods,

(2) the failure to look in Google Books and Google News on the 20 other prod/afds.

(3) not actually stopping to add sources to any other bank articles

These are classic signs of drive by hobby deletionism. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: In that context, you may as well apply to the AIW. Anyways, what if I told you that maybe, just maybe, I performed searches for all of the articles prior to actually prodding them? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you told someone that you'd then have to explain why you couldn't find plain mentions in Google Books and Google News. Fact is you didn't do the minimum of due diligence, you made a disruptive and time wasting run at a large number of Philippine banks expecting other editors to jump to it and add sources. This is not what Prod and AFD are for. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no mentions. I am not expecting anyone to add sources, please keep your mutated opinion to yourself. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup, notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep - as per comments such as "Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding" pushing other editors to add sources or else is not the purpose of Prod or AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- With regards to this specific afd, where did I say that? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to copy-paste this on every single AFD you have started? Please stop it. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:36, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no because people don't seem to understand what "speedy keep" actually means. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:40, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2014 (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.