Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Queen City Development 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) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen City Development Bank[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:COMPANY. No references were added to indicate its notability. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 10:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the other Philippine bank AFDs and nom not understanding the purpose of AFD. "No refs were added" - sorry but what does that mean? - it is not the purpose of AFD to push other editors into adding references to articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator perfectly understands AfD, i.e. to delete articles about non-notable subjects like this bank. "No refs were added" to establish its notability. So how are people supposed to believe that the bank actually is notable if nobody has added any refs supporting that claim. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 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]
- Seriously, did you just go around copy-pasting your comment everywhere without even checking the article? Is it really notable?? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Not cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The bank is notable given its coverage in both English and non-English sources: see this, this, this, this, this and this. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 09:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Philstar source seems to be the only useful source given by you. The first one, from a radio station's website (given from what I can comprehend) talks about the employee's salaries. Could be useful, but how reliable is this website? The Inquirer and The News Today links only have passing mentions. The two archived links from the Visayan Daily Star talk about the bank's new branch opening. Are there any links that actually could establish this bank's notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" don't have actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 14:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using Google Books, I found brief listings, usually just the name, in several business directories and directories of banks. What I found confirmed a few facts in the article. —rybec 06:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 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.