English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/One Network 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)
One Network Bank
- One Network Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. It's only link is the company's website. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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. –HTD 12:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- I call BS. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
- This is about notability, not clean-up. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep. Sorry, Raykyogrou0, but I call BS on your accusation that there's "seriously nothing" about this bank. Explain this, this, this, this, this and this, then. Don't make it appear that you've done due diligence: it's becoming glaringly apparent that you didn't. --Sky Harbor (talk) 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- People are supposed to search Google News and Google Books and I seriously found nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason, I find that claim (that you seriously found nothing) extremely hard to believe. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I'm sorry that that is beyond your comprehension. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 15:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- For some reason, I find that claim (that you seriously found nothing) extremely hard to believe. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- People are supposed to search Google News and Google Books and I seriously found nothing. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Comment. The comments saying "Speedy Keep" or "Close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 09:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
- Keep/Close - on the basis of sources, and per the self declared use of Prod and AFD on these 20 banks to get other editors to add sources. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Seriously, what is your problem? How many times do I have to repeat that if I wanted this article cleaned up I would have tagged it as such and not nominated it. The only declaration here is the one by you. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
- 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.