Talk:Collapse of Signature Bank

Signature Bank
Signature Bank is NOT a long article and a split is NOT needed. Of course the collapse is notable, but it's the bank itself that's notable, and there's no reason whatsoever that we must jump to this content being on a separate page, resulting in duplication and the spreading of related material across multiple pages. Please expand information about Signature Bank in the Signature Bank article until a split is actually warranted. Reywas92Talk 13:54, 13 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that if we're going to cover this subject itself well, we'll run into a WP:BALASP issue on the main article. This article can be used to cover the subject in more detail, and I see no need to WP:BLAR at this time. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 13:56, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * So let's split that page when balance issues actually arise. But this is the first time the bank has really been in the national news, so if the main article focuses on the collapse, that's not a big deal! Again, please, there should not be new articles the instant something happens when the content can grow in the main article perfectly well until there's a basis for a new article that's not a majority duplicative background. Reywas92Talk 13:59, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * We don't have to discuss this now, all the work on the collapse can be done here, and the lead is excerpted in the bank article, so that the work is not repeated and there is no content forking. If it later shows that the two articles are good merger candidates, we'll just merge them. —Alalch E. 14:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Alalch E. I agree with Reywas92. Signature Bank was a notoriously low-profile institution, so it was not in the public eye much. Most of the coverage I've added has been in specialty publications like regional business journals and American Banker. Right now, I look at Collapse of Signature Bank and I see pretty much material that I've ported over from the original article and nothing else. The existence of this incomplete page also seems to be leading to opposition to adding Signature Bank to the ITN blurb. Sammi Brie  (she/her • t • c) 16:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Since making that comment, I have explored meaningful ways to expand this article so that its body may support the current lead (by not just repeating the information with the same level of detail), but it seems that it can't really be significantly expanded, which means that this is currenly a pretty short article, which means that it doesn't need to be a separate article. So I support merging per WP:PAGEDECIDE; covering everything together provides better context. —Alalch E. 16:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Propagating content from the lead to the body
To avoid content forking the lead is excerpted in the bank article. The lead currently has many MOS:LEADNOTUNIQUE claims. This should not be resolved by moving those claims to the body or removing them, but by repeating them in a more detailed manner in the body. —Alalch E. 14:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)