Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank al Etihad


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 06:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Bank al Etihad

 * – ( View AfD View log )

On the surface this article qualifies for G11, but it was recently extensively rewritten by a COI editor. However, looking through the page history, I couldn't find a non-spammy version to revert to. A search for sources on both the current name and on "union bank jordan", its former name, turned up a bunch of advertising and directory-type sources as well as coverage of its name change. If this is in fact one of the largest banks in Jordan as a previous version of the article claimed (without a source), then it probably does meet notability criteria. But in any case, I think TNT is in order here. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 18:21, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Union Bank has relaunched its Corporate Identity and officially changed its name to Bank al Etihad, you can check their website bankaletihad.com. Anything under the name of Union Bank has been deleted. below is the official Trademark registration certificate highlighting changing the name from Union Bank to Bank al Etihad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bank al Etihad (talk • contribs) 14:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC) 
 * Comment If the bank has changed its name, then references to the old name should NOT be removed from information relating to when that was the name. It is a part of the history of the bank. I would advise User:Bank al Etihad to read WP:COI, and probably WP:SOCK before they appeal for unblocking. Peridon (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   01:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Looks like an advert to me. They even have their own Wikipedia account to support it. If it where completely re-done, maybe it could be kept...--Axel™ (talk) 19:13, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't. I blocked it... Peridon (talk) 18:08, 27 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage by independent third party sources. If such sources are added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:03, 2 December 2011 (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.