Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blue Hills 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 no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus either way with respect to this subject. There is no question that the subject is a business that exists, and has remained in operation for nearly 150 years (albeit with both substantial structural changes and a possibly ill-advised name change). In my opinion, this is a borderline case. If the bank had been founded 20 years ago and had achieved its current status in terms of holdings, NYSE status, and slight press coverage, I would consider it much more difficult to demonstrate notability; if the bank had existed since 1870 and never gained a substantial business footprint, I would also consider it much more difficult to demonstrate notability. I was, frankly, tempted to move this to draft space to seek better sourcing, but that is typically appropriate where the article is not being worked on in mainspace. Since that work is being done, I will encourage its continuation where it sits. bd2412 T 11:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Blue Hills Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

My initial impression was that this should be notable, but I couldn't find the coverage to verify this. WP:ATDs are to Blue Hills Bank Pavilion or Nantucket, but I didn't think either was a convincing redirect target. Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 18:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- an unremarkable community bank; Wikipedia is not a directory. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:41, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 06:20, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Sizable bank. JuntungWu (talk) 15:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete No indications of notability, reference provided fails the criteria for establishing notability. Fails GNG and WP:NCORP.  -- HighKing ++ 17:16, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is "Blue Hills Bancorp", traded on the New York Stock Exchange, there will exist analyst coverage of it as it is a traded security on the biggest U.S. stock exchange.  There be Wall Street Journal announcements of its earnings etc.  There may be U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigations, enforcement actions, etc.  It is a big deal to be NYSE listed.  I think in the past there has been some ridiculous claim made that NYSE-traded firms are not necessarily notable, but of course in fact they are.  You try listing your company on the NYSE!!!!! -- do  ncr  am  00:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Please post links to two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Note that company announcements, earnings announcements, etc, are not regarded as intellectually independent sources. -- HighKing ++ 15:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yahoo finance profile; reuters profile;  Wall street journal articles, etc.  You put in the links.  I am not looking who put this article into deletion play, but whoever it was didn't do their wp:BEFORE homework.  Are you serious?  I suppose you are, that you think a NYSE-listed company is not notable, which is absurd. -- do  ncr  am  15:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, from WP:LISTED There has been considerable discussion over time whether publicly traded corporations, or at least publicly traded corporations listed on major stock exchanges such as the NYSE and other comparable international stock exchanges, are inherently notable. Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in this (or any other) case.. Yahoo Finance and reuters profiles (generally) fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Many WSJ articles rely on interviews/quotations or company announcements and fail WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. I've tried to find references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and haven't found any.
 * Also, just be aware that whoever closes this doesn't count !votes but evaluates the arguments and reasoning against policy/guidelines. Your (any mine and everyone else's) *opinions* don't count. If you want to smash the AfD irrefutably out of the park, the easiest is to post two links that meet the criteria for establishing notability. -- HighKing ++ 23:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. I know, you should know, everybody else knows that this (and probably every other NYSE-listed) company is Wikipedia notable.  It has $2.3 billion in assets.  It has market value of $537 million!  There is no value provided by AFDs on NYSE-listed companies.
 * Also, per wp:LISTED, "..., sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companie ..." (bolding added by me) and editors are encouraged to search for and add the analyst reports, etc., that are publicly available in this case and, at least behind paywalls for, I expect, all others. Also it is nonsense that Google and Yahoo and Reuters profiles are not valid reports on the audited financial statements of the NYSE companies. -- do  ncr  am  17:02, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, all I'm seeing is that you still can't find two references. Your opinion doesn't trump policy and guidelines. -- HighKing ++ 12:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or TNT - Fails WP:NCORP, WP:LISTED, and WP:MILL. First, the article subject exists but the sourcing is primarily concerned with Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc, and not with the actual Blue Hills Bank(s). Second, per WP:LISTED being traded on a stock exchange is not a direct indication of notability. Third, per WP:MILL small community banks are not considered to be notable if they do not provide a notable service even if they have accrued coverage from reliable sources. My advice would be to delete this article and create one for Blue Hills Bancorp, Inc or rename and WP:TNT the current article.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:45, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, "TNT" acknowledges that the topic is valid. Sure, it can/should be moved to Blue Hills Bancorp probably ("Keep" with suggestion to move/rename is the appropriate AFD outcome), and it should cover the history of the Nantucket Bank, one of its predecessors, and so on.  Umm, what is your reasoning for deleting then recreating?  The essay wp:TNTTNT provides numerous reasons why that should not be done, one being that it violates Wikipedia's promise to contributors that they will be credited for their work (while deleting the article then recreating it wipes out edit history of contributions). -- do  ncr  am  17:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   20:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Ran some searches, no indications of notability, fails GNG & WP:NCORP. Deathlibrarian (talk) 22:11, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will add some of the available sources after this AFD closes.  It is ludicrous that several editors are announcing they searched but found nothing.  Perhaps they did not search "Blue Hills Bancorp" or they didn't try very hard.  If a closing editor chooses to delete to make some point that "AFD is for cleanup" (contrary to wp:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP), then please provide a copy to my user space, to save time, as I would surely re-create the article. -- do  ncr  am  17:16, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I just don't understand why you can't just post two links here... -- HighKing ++ 21:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Subject of significant coverage. See   - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The first link is broken with a 404 error. The second link is a company announcement in relation to a name change and fails WP:ORGIND and/or WP:CORPDEPTH. Your last reference is a self-published book and fails WP:ORGIND as it is not intellectually independent. -- HighKing ++ 21:24, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I've fixed the first link. I disagree with your assertion that the second link, an article written by an independent source (The Boston Globe) prior to the the company officially announcing its name change and features statements critical of the bank's decision could be seen as failing WP:ORGIND or WP:CORPDEPTH. As for the last link, it is independent of the subject of the article, therefore it meets WP:ORGIND - Hirolovesswords (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Thank you for fixing the first link. The article is based on a company announcement and this is confirmed at the start of the second paragraph. It therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH and/or WP:ORGIND. You say that you disagree with my assertion that the second link fails WP:ORGIND because the article predates the "official" announcement of the name change. Here is another article for the same date. Note it clearly refers to "a statement" from the company as the originator of the information. Finally, your assertion that the last reference is "independent of the subject of the article, therefore it meets WP:ORGIND" may be true, but it misinterprets what I said. The book is self-published and books of this type are generally not acceptable as reliable sources, therefore it fails WP:RS. Furthermore, the book is 96 pages and the company is mentioned once, in passing, and therefore fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, I stated that the book is not intellectually independent but this is no longer important to the process of analysing this source for the purpose of meeting the criteria for establishing notability since this book fails on two other counts.  -- HighKing ++ 16:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment' WP:ORGIND refers to sources that are substantially based on a press release. An article that features information that would not be included in a company statement, including comments from people outside of the company (especially those critical of the company) is a non-routine work. - Hirolovesswords (talk) 17:32, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree - an article that includes information and data originating from a company announcement or press release may still meet the criteria for establishing notability if it also includes original analysis and/or opinion. I assume you are referring to this Boston Globe article and while I can see comments from "Milton banking consultant Suzanne Moot" and from "Mayor Thomas M. Menino", there is nothing substantial in those comments and anyway, the reference is still "substantially" based on PRIMARY sources. -- HighKing ++ 13:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Links 2 and 3 are reported article in the Boston Globe; this makes them WP:RSes even though the company undoubtedly did prompt the reporting in a regional daily on a significant change in the status of a significant business by sending out a press release. E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Page is sourced back to the bank's founding in the 1870s, and its modern activities are quite well sourced. More sources exist (I just added a 2011 article from the International Herald Tribune  on the bank's shift in models due to low interest rates in ~2011.  More can be added, but, frankly, I am puzzled to understand why there is a long AfD about a Boston area bank with a well-sourced page and more sourcing available in a news archive search.(the fact that the Boston Globe is pay-walled may have misled some editors).E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Contra Nom, the Blue Hills Bank Pavilion does contribute its mite to notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:53, 26 October 2017 (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.