Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concentra Financial


 * 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.  Sandstein  17:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Concentra Financial

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As written, this fails WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. The edit history comments even remark on the myriad problems with WP:NPOV and wikipuffery. This is a textbook example of WP:CORPSPAM and I would also point out Wikipedia is not a directory or the yellow pages. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Note to AfD Closer Although Concentra Bank has never been created, as that is the current name of this bank, I'm wondering if it is possible to cross-list/cross-post the red notice of the article's deletion? Doug Mehus (talk) 16:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Agree that there doesn't seem to be enough in terms of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources for this page to pass WP:CORP, or at least I was not able to find any in my WP:BEFORE. One thing I would say is - no, WP:PERMASTUB (an essay-level guide, not policy) is not a WP:DELREASON. As the essay itself explains, there are plenty of permanent stub articles that are perfectly viable as articles and should not be deleted. The stub articles that should be deleted are to be deleted for reasons other than being simply stubs. FOARP (talk) 15:49, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am fine with you amending the original rationale to place a period following "notable" and deleting from "or" to "permastub" if you like. That's probably the weakest of the arguments for deletion. I think it's sufficient to delete on WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH alone. Just make sure you put an edit summary that the proponent authorized your editing the rationale. Doug Mehus (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Coverage is limited to WP:PRIMARY and press-releases and as such fails WP:NORG. I'd suggest a merge to some list of Canadian banks or such, however. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:14, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your further reply to the trend in Canadian credit union and bank stubs and their non-notability. As to your suggestion about merging with a list, that's problematic in that I don't find redirecting Concentra Financial to a list, template, or other namespace to be particularly helpful. As well, it sometimes creates double redirects in that when an article page becomes a redirect, that article page is still listed in the footer box of similar companies so when the user clicks on that name of related companies, they end up back on the same page, if that makes sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 03:30, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Double redirects are easy to fix, just remove the links to them from the list.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:47, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, I don't think I was clear. You see, in Template:Canadian banks, that template is added to the footer of every page. Many banks and credit unions that aren't WP:Notable are still listed in that template as redlinked banks. If we have a redirect, instead of deleting the page, which redirects to List of banks and credit unions in Canada, the user clicks through from the template to the list. I just don't think that's helpful. Does that make more sense? Doug Mehus (talk) 04:00, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It does. Red links are for topics that are deemed notable but not created yet (WP:RED). Deleted entries should be unlinked. I am unsure what is the WP:MOS take on such links in templates - unlik or remove entirely? Perhaps remove, and make a note on talk that such template should only list notable banks, with the template perhaps using the word major, like 'major Canadaian banks' etc.. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:50, 10 October 2019 (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.