Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UBank

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.

UBank[edit]

The result was Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank. Article may be split when the subject itself attains notability as accepted by the community. JodyB talk 14:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UBank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Blatant advertising, web refs are mostly self-references and paid ads. Nothing particularly encyclopaedic here. At most, it should redirect to National Australia Bank. Moondyne 14:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as blatant advertising.--Boffob (talk) 15:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — not blatant advertising. A couple of verifiable sources seem to indicate notability. MuZemike (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and tag for sounding like an advert, but they appear to be notable and at least somewhat sourced. This can be fixed on the talk page of the article itself, or by being WP:bold. PHARMBOY (moo) (plop) 17:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hey, in the time when banks drop like flies, opening a new one seems like a miracle... or maybe anticipation of another bankruptcy. As for the self-refs, it's quite normal for a new establishment. Remember, it's new so there's no public audited statements, no analyst reviews, or class lawsuites :)). When (if) it falls, you'll get more third-party calls. NVO (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a bank in name only. In reality this is a marketing strategy by NAB to take term deposits, nothing more. There's no branches, no atm's. NAB just calls it a "division", not even a subsidiary. There's no street address, just a North Sydney PO box number. I'll bet its accommodated in NAB's offices somewhere. I just rang them and they confirmed they are physically within NAB offices. Its a WP:PRODUCT and should be treated as such. Moondyne 02:45, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: article has several independent sources for content. Google search shows many hits. It's a genuine bank just like ING Direct is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) — 124.170.141.154 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • Remember that something (like a bank) may exist but may not necessarily assert notability. MuZemike (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Found a number of good sources on google, if any POV is in the article it can be removed so it doens't read like an advertisement. --Banime (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
can you please share those sources Gnangarra 00:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank, with no prejudice against a later split should one be necessary and better sources are available. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - needs better sourcing but seems a new player in the industry competing with INGDirect etc Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank per Mattinbgn and per this source [1] which shows it is just a NAB channel and this news item which seems to confirm that [2] - probably worth adding to the NAB article if it blows up noting that Wikipedia is not news against being too hasty on something potentially rather trivial in the scheme of things. --Matilda talk 21:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The second article is interesting as it makes reference to a "Frank Booth". perhaps Fbooth (talk · contribs), the creator of this article. Is this article a (rather poor) attempt at Viral marketing? -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge - astonished that anyone might consider keep in view of Matilda/Mat's leads to what it relates to - as always google is the last place i would look in considering this - hits=genuine seems like it can fool a lot of people a lot of the time - keep suggests limited understanding of contextSatuSuro 22:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I hadn't joined the dots though thought viral marketing might be at play. For those who don't want to click through: The article states

      Gledhill's blog post received strong criticism from 'Frank Booth' -- who she found to be posting from the network name 'NABAUS' with the DNS details 'DNSAU00.NATIONAL.COM.AU'. iTnews has seen screenshots which appear to support this allegation.
      However, according to the NAB switchboard, no one called 'Frank Booth' works at either NAB or UBank.

      At least here he declares it is a pseudonym. I hadn't made the connection before Mattinbgn drew it to my attention! Though I thought it seemed likely that something might be up because of the internet manipulation.--Matilda talk 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. This is a banking product. Per WP:PRODUCT, "information on products and services should generally be included in the article on the company itself". WWGB (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete totally non-notable, take the information about NAB out of the lead your left with UBank is a division of National Australia Bank (NAB). Gnangarra 00:01, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. deserves only a paragraph in National Australia Bank. Michellecrisp (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:ORG and some serious questions about WP:COI. I would not oppose a merge and redirect. Orderinchaos 01:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:COI issues, per "UBank team members regularly check and update the UBank Wikipedia content. For any queries regarding this, please contact UBank by email - [email protected]". Moondyne 03:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:35, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect. A division of NAB born out of a marketing initiative, it clearly belongs in the NAB article and with much less content than currently appears. Murtoa (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • whatever the decision, RaboPlus, ING Direct and similar bank subsidiaries should be treated the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk • contribs)
    Please read WP:OSE and sign your posts--Boffob (talk) 12:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Each article needs to be assessed on its merits. ING Direct is probably notable in view of its size, having 85 million clients and a direct presence in 50 countries. It is also a wholly owned subsidiary of a parent rather than a simple marketing division and has been in operation for more than 10 years. RaboPlus however, is worthy of a separate discussion. Moondyne 12:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite: "ING DIRECT is a division of ING Bank (Australia) Limited ABN 24 000 893 292" from their website & "UBank is a division of National Australia Bank". Your label of "simple marketing division" seems to be unverified and sounds like your personal view.
    Not quite again: ING Direct is in 10 countries (not 50) and has 20mill clients (not 85) - the figures quoted above seem to relate to the ING Group (ING's owner). Source: ING Groups Annual Report. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.141.154 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC) — 124.170.141.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    I stand corrected, my apologies. By the way, I don't have any personal view in this except improving the encyclopaedia. Moondyne 23:34, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment notwithstanding WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument ... - as an Australian, UBank is obviously tied to closely to its parent, identification for example can be achieved simply if you are already a NAB client. ING Direct is a leader in branchless banking as innovating significantly in that area in Australia at least. The parent company, ING Group, already has a substantial article that deals with much more than branchless banking so I can't see a merger as being useful. Rabobank similarly seems and article that, apart from lacking references, is a substantial article but mainly covering its history. There is a discussion about deletion of RaboPlus. However, I note the article about the parent seems to contain nothing about this product line. As per comments at that AfD though I think merge and redirect appropriate in that case too.--Matilda talk 00:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the products you have listed are notable - you have not established how this product is notable. Please review the relevant guideline. --Matilda talk 00:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - how is the Centurion card "notable" ? it's a product name of AMEX, nothing else. Wizzzzman (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, spam without redeaming features.--Grahame (talk) 00:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's a new bank in Australia- yes a subsidiary of NAB, but so are the other ones mentioned here. This makes it notable. Size is not the only criteria of notability by the way. Wizzzzman (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2008 (UTC)— Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment: PS: I understand that notability is hard to assess by users from outside Australia, so I'd ask those to be more specific in their judgments. Eg, how come it's "spam" if all facts are properly referenced ?? not possible in my opinion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizzzzman (talk • contribs) 10:33, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to National Australia Bank as it's just a product of the NAB but not notable for it's own article. Bidgee (talk) 03:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to National Australia Bank, as it's not a bank, but rather just a branding, and not a particularly notable one at that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:11, 7 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Merge and redirect -- to National Australia Bank, not forgetting also the rest of what Mattinbgn sensibly said above. - Longhair\talk 06:13, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it passes the relevant notability guideline, then it should be kept. If there are style issues, they can be fixed without deleting the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UBank&oldid=1138753042"