Talk:BinckBank

Speedy deletion proposal
BinckBank is a bank, which is a class of company generally deemed to be notable. Furthermore it's a listed company on the stock exchange. If that's not enough, it's part of a stock index. So the speedy deletion proposal by WWGB is a little weird. JacobH (talk) 12:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * So where are all the independent, reliable sources that demonstrate that this company is notable? WWGB (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what WWGB said and I also don't think that being a bank or being listed in the stock exchange is enough to make a company Wikipedia-notable. Here we see that secondary sources are the most important factor - if there's plenty of international or national media coverage, then it's notable enough. Kotiwalo (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Mind you, it's nominated for speedy deletion. If you think you'll improve wikipedia by deleting this page, well.. hurry up then. JacobH (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Non-notable companies are eligible for speedy deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Guess we will have to wait for an admin to delete the page then... JacobH (talk) 13:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. Browse the web and see if you can find any news site (national or international preferred) or any other such website that mentions the company and supports it's importance. If you find sources that back up the notability then it won't be deleted. Kotiwalo (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * DIdn't exactly take me long to find one or two sources, and there's plenty more where that came from. A little more diligence before slapping a speedy tag on would have been nice. Gr1st (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Kotiwalo and WWGB, you are way out of line threading with speedy deletion and sticking to it. It could very well be this is my first article on the English wikipedia. Instead of using a soft warning template addressing the issue of lacking refs and sources, you try to scare me away from contributing to wikipedia. I have some more experience on different wikipedia's, but it could very well be another real first-time writer could just leave. JacobH (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps stop whining and work on improving the article so that the subject is notable. If you spent more time on establishing notability you would not be in this position. WWGB (talk) 13:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing wrong with the article, especially after Gr1st added some refs. There's something wrong with your attitude though, WWGB. ("you would not be in this position").. JacobH (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a bit harsh WWGB. In my opinion this is no longer speedy deletion eligible. More content would be needed, though, but that doesn't qualify for speedy deletion. Kotiwalo (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)