Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Nations Bank of Canada


 * 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 keep. There is evident growing consensus of keeping the article after sources have been exhibited by cunard. keeping this for now. Lourdes 00:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

First Nations Bank of Canada

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "First Nations Bank of Canada" reveals little, if any, press coverage—all of it related to trivial matters such as new branch office openings, revised branch hours, marketing partnerships, and routine operations. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

* trivial coverage that do not count toward meeting the significant coverage requirement --Dreerwin (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC) *Delete Thanks for the clarification :) I changed my vote --Dreerwin (talk) 01:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC) Struck per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Given sock activity was tempted to just delete but given age of article would prefer a stronger consensus be established before closing.
 * Delete Fails WP:NCORP; the only information online is either from their website or from directories. Press coverage is little to non-existent. Luke  Talk  00:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , There's nothing to merge it with, though. If you decide to change your vote, you can either edit your post or surround merg with quotation marks and preceded, within the quotation marks, with "strike" Doug Mehus (talk) 01:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 12:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.     <li><li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li></li> <li><li></li> <li></li> <li></li> </ol>

<ol> <li> The article notes: "The First Nations Bank was established to loan money to First Nations people, mostly commercial investments, but also mortgages and other loans as banks do. The bank has just completed its 12th straight year of profitable operations and now has assets of $300 million (audited financial statements are published annually). You don't have that kind of success rate unless you are dealing with corporations that are managed competently by hard-working people who are marketing goods and services to ready markets that are expanding. The First Nations Bank is primarily owned and operated by First Nations people. This could be one of the major factors in their success." The article includes a quote from speakers affiliated with First Nations Bank at Aboriginal Chamber of Commerce luncheon.</li> <li> The book notes: "First Nations Bank of Canada Within three weeks of the RCAP report, one of its recommendations was realized when Canada's first Aboriginal bank was ceremonially launched in Toronto by Prime Minister Jean Chretien and Native leaders. Using Toronto-Dominion Bank facilities to provide services to both Native and non-Native customers, the First Nations Bank of Canada will begin operations in Saskatoon in 1997. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is providing $8 million in start-up capital, while the Saskatchewan Federation of Indians is investing $2 million through the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation. Toronto-Dominion will receive 25 per cent of the profits until its investment is repaid and the bank goes on its own; however, the majority of the profits will go to Indian shareholders, to be reinvested in the bank. The hope is that it will attract the investment of some of the moneys expected to be paid to Indian bands in land claim settlements across the country. Noting that the bank 'will be a piece of Canadian history' that was nearly four years in the Saskatchewan Federation chief Blaine Favel observed: The road to political self-determination, the road to self-government, is directly linked to the role of economic development. If we are to have strong self-government, if we are to have a strong political direction, we have to have a strong economic base." The book notes: "Image caption: Amerindians in ceremonial dress took part in the opening ritual that launched the First Nations Bank, 1996. The ceremony was held in Toronto, but the first branch to go into operation was in Saskatoon. The Toronto-Dominion Bank is helping the all-Native financial institutions get started. (Andy Clark; Reuters)." The book has additional text in the section that is under Google snippets view.</li> <li> The article notes: "THE CREATION of the First Nations Bank of Canada is both an historic event and business as usual.<p That there will be a national chartered bank in Canada that is 100 per cent owned (in 10 years) by aboriginal shareholders cannot help but be a good thing for Canada's First Nations peoples and for the larger Canadian community. That the First Nations Bank is launched with the Toronto-Dominion Bank as its majority owner, benefactor and landlord, is also noteworthy. There's no other arrangement like this in the country, said Brenda Bracken-Warwick, the regional director of the Canadian Bankers Association. 'It is unprecedented.' The driving force behind the bank has come from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations and $2 million worth of equity from the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation. (The other $8 million is being staked by the T-D Bank.) Some think this bank will not make a difference when it comes to the level of poverty and general economic mobility of the greater aboriginal community. There's no way, with a large number of our people poor, that they have a hope in hell of getting ahead with the (current) banks, said George Munroe, executive director of the Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre Inc. in Winnipeg and the vice-president of the Aboriginal Council of Winnipeg. ''As far as I'm concerned, if this is just an extension of the banking system then it will not make one bit of difference to aboriginal people. 'I've been arguing with the banks for years, saying what they have to do is change the relationship, change the rules on how they offer credit (and other financial services to individuals), otherwise we won't get anywhere,' he said."</li> <li> The book notes: "The First Nations Bank of Canada will accept deposits from all sources but will target Aboriginal customers. Of particular interest, are (i) current First Nations institutions and governments and their existing and emerging activities and programs, (ii) First Nations businesses, (iii) the large and growing pool of capital from treaty land entitlement and other settlements, and (iv) non-First Nations companies doing significant business in 'Indian Country.' The third item is particularly significant. The recently concluded Treaty Land Entitlement process in Saskatchewan will make $522-million available to 27 First Nationals over the next 12 years. The land claims process is not unique to the TLE First Nations in Saskatchewan. Other First Nations in Saskatchewan are pursuing specific claims. Elsewhere in the country there are numerous land claims under negotiation, with those in British Columbia being particularly noteworthy. Deposits raised from such sourcs will provide the bank with the capital necessary to make loans to existing and new Aboriginal businesses across Canada. The bank's marketing projections for deposits and resulting loands are confidential but conversative expectations suggest a many-fold increase in the dollars available for loands to Aboriginal customers in Saskatchewan and elsewhere in Canada. The FSIN/Toronto Dominion Bank initiative has not escaped the notice of the other chartered banks. They are not prepared to yield the lucrative First Nation market to the First Nations Bank of Canada by default."</li> <li> The book notes: "First Nations Bank of Canada The First Nations Bank of Canada is the first Canadian chartered bank to be independently controlled by Indigenous shareholders. The First Nations Bank of Canada provides financial services to Indigenous People and is an advocate for the growth of the Indigenous economy and the economic well-being of Indigenous People. The Bank aims to increase shareholder value by participating in and promoting the development of the Indigenous economy. The Bank was conceived and developed by Indigenous People, for Indigenous People and regards itself as an important step towards Indigenous economic self-sufficiency. The strategic directive of the founding shareholders was to grow the Bank and increase Indigenous ownership to the point that the Bank would be controlled by a widely held group of Indigenous shareholders. The Bank is over 80% owned and controlled by Indigenous shareholders from Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Yukon, Northwest Territoris, Nunavut and Quebec (First Nations Bank of Canada, 2018)."</li> <li> The article notes: "A new bank has arrived in Canada, dedicated to economic and political independence for Indians. Prime Minister Jean Chretien, native leaders and officials of the Toronto Dominion Bank came together on Bay Street Monday for the ceremonial launch of the First Nations Bank of Canada. ... The bank is backed by a $2 million investment from the Saskatchewan Indian Equity Foundation, which is owned by a federation of that province's first nations, and by an$8 million investment from the Toronto Dominion Bank."</li> <li> The article notes: "First Nations Bank of Canada has moved one step closer to becoming an independent bank, completing a private placement with investors in an effort to boost its growth. The bank, partly owned by TD Bank Financial Group, said the move dilutes TD's ownership from approximately 89 per cent of voting shares to nine per cent of voting shares."</li> <li> The article notes: "Prime Minister Jean Chretien and several prominent chiefs were on hand Monday to sign the charter establishing the First Nations Bank of Canada at a ceremony in Toronto's financial district. The new bank starts off as a partnership between Toronto Dominion, Canada's fifth-biggest bank, and the federation of Saskatchewan Indian chiefs. Toronto Dominion is investing $6 million and the federation $1.5 million, but 75 percent of the profits will go to the Indians. The long-term plan is for the Indians to buy out Toronto Dominion's stake within 10 years, selling shares to aboriginals across Canada and opening branches in native communities nationwide. The bank's inauguration comes at a sensitive time for Indian leaders and federal officials. ... First Nations Bank, based in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, is the kind of initiative that Chretien's government supports - it will not require new federal spending and will give aboriginals a chance to succeed or fail on their own, without a major government role."</li> <li> From the abstract: "Newly formed First Nations Bank of Canada (FNBC) will concentrate on providing Canada's aboriginal citizens with banking services, hoping to capitalize on the billions of dollars in industry that aboriginal people create each year. Toronto Dominion Bank is FNBC's primary investor, and FNBC customers will have complete access to the ATM, on-line and 24-hour banking services provided by Toronto Dominion's 949 Canadian branches. The cost for FNBC to establish services without leveraging Toronto Dominion's existing assets is estimated at $100 million, and many FNBC customers are already accustomed to using Toronto Dominion's services. Analysts suggest that FNBC must integrate innovative technologies and establish a presence with which customers are comfortable in order to be successful."</li> <li> The article notes: "Canada's first aboriginal bank will open its doors early next year in Saskatoon, using the Toronto-Dominion Bank's access and branch system to provide services to both native and non-native customers. The First Nations Bank of Canada will be 'a piece of Canadian history,' Chief Blaine Favel of the Saskatchewan Federation of Indian Nations said at the announcement ceremony yesterday. Through its financial corporation, the federation is investing $2-million in the new bank, which has received both letters patent and approval by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. As well, the TD is providing $8-million in start-up capital. ... Correction: The newly announced First Nations Bank of Canada is not the first native financial institution. That distinction belongs to Peace Hills Trust, which was established in the early 1980s by Samson First Nation in Alberta."</li> <li> The article notes: "First Nations Bank of Canada, which is being launched by aboriginal organizations in Saskatchewan with financial and other backing from Toronto-Dominion Bank, expects to be fully aboriginally controlled within 10 years. ... First Nations, which will be based in Saskatoon, is in the final stages of receiving federal regulatory approval. The new bank will be tiny. It will have a lending-to-capital multiple of 15, meaning that to start with it can lend up to a total of only $150-million."</li> <li> The article notes: "A Canadian bank and a regional Indian group said on Monday they planned to form the country's first native-owned bank to help Canada's aboriginal people become more financially self-sufficient. The First Nations Bank of Canada is expected to begin operating in Saskatchewan in late 1996 -- pending approval from federal regulators. ... The idea for the First Nations Bank was born in the early 1980s when the SIEF was formed as Canada's first aboriginal capital corporation."</li> <li> The article notes: "Toronto Dominion Bank is backing a competitor, but believes the deal will generate new customers for it. TD announced yesterday it will invest $8 million in start- up capital for First Nations Bank of Canada. The new chartered bank, subject to regulatory approval, will have its head office in Saskatoon and eventually branches across the country."</li> <li> The article notes: "Canada's first aboriginal-controlled bank could eventually be partly owned by rich U.S. native bands that have made money from running casinos. First Nations Bank of Canada was officially launched yesterday in a ceremony at the head office of Toronto Dominion Bank, after it received letters patent and approval to join the Canada Deposit Insurance Corp. ... The launch was attended by Prime Minister Jean Chretien, who was formerly a TD director and was once minister of Indian Affairs."</li> </ol>

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow First Nations Bank of Canada to pass Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 05:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)</li></ul>
 * , Incorrect. None of those sources qualify as WP:SIGCOV, though. At the same time, WP:CORPDEPTH needs to be considered as none of those sources can provide sufficient coverage to write more than a stub-class article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmehus (talk • contribs) 04:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - Thanks to User:Cunard for the sources. I really don't understand the claim that none of the sources are significant coverage.  For example, both the Waterloo Record article and the Houston Chronicle article feature the bank as the primary subject and are substantial articles that go beyond just a one or two line blurb.  Furthermore, the Houston Chronicle out of Texas in the United States thought it notable enough to write about this bank in Canada. -- Whpq (talk) 13:35, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, there has to be enough WP:RS to provide WP:CORPDEPTH and write more than a perpetual stub-class or start-class article. Of the sources Cunard quoted, most were from the bank's launch 25 years ago. If you refer to my original AfD, I reviewed all available Google web and news source, none of which met the criteria for WP:SIGCOV. This suggests to me the bank generated some one-time and, perhaps, even occasional press coverage, but nothing recent. In order to write an article more than stub-class, we would have to rely entirely on primary sources and I'd note that banks and credit unions larger than First Nations Bank of Canada were recently deleted (Central 1 Credit Union, Concentra Financial, and Bridgewater Bank). As well, Bridgewater's parent Alberta Motor Association resulted in a merge with Canadian Automobile Association because it lacked standalone notability. I'm tagging User:Barkeep49 and User:Piotrus here because they commented on some of the article pages mentioned here. Doug Mehus (talk) 23:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * My activity here was in my role as a sysop to judge consensus and apply policy which in this case was to relist. After I relist an AfD I will take no further action with it and so I have no comment on any sources presented by Cunard or indeed any discussion that has taken place after my relist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, my apologies, I see that you relisted this article so are already an involved administrator who cannot participate in the discussion on source quality or !vote even though we notionally do not "vote". I shouldn't have tagged you. Again, my apologies.--Doug Mehus (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You state that "Of the sources Cunard quoted, most were from the bank's launch 25 years ago." which of course means some of the sources are subsequent to the launch as Curnard points out below. This means there has been coverage just beyond the initial launch.  Requiring that there be recent coverage is actually contrary to our notability guidelines.  See WP:NOTTEMPORARY where it explicitly states that "it does not need to have ongoing coverage". You also state "refer to my original AfD",  There has been no prior AFD for this article.  I assume you mean your nominating statement.  If so, Cunard has provided the significant coverage. These sources are independent of the bank and the case of the newspaper articles, the bank is the primary subject of the article.  You also refer to the size of this bank relative to other financial institutions which have had articles deleted.  WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST applies in this case.  Those other article were deleted because there was no significant coverage in reliable sources.  There are for this company.  There is no bank specific notability criteria for the "size" of the bank whatever that means (you did not state what metric is used for size measurement). -- Whpq (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. Cunard shows the bank got decent coverage for its launch, but in the end it's all a variation of WP:ONEEVENT. And said launch coverage doesn't rise much above the level or rewritten press releases. --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The bank was founded in 1997. This article published in 2013 and this book published in 2018 discuss the bank outside the context of the 1997 launch so WP:ONEEVENT does not apply: <ol><li></li><li><li></ol> Cunard (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , The OECD article is a passing mention and does not count. Winnipeg Free Press article is not an article but an editorial, an opinion column, or a letter to the editor and may not qualify. The books appear to provide only passing, or short, mentions of this non-notable bank, so they, too, don't qualify.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment: The AfD nominator approach an editor on their talk page to criticize the sources I posted at this AfD and to ask the editor to participate in this AfD, that editor declined to participate in this AfD, and then the AfD nominator pinged Piotrus "because they commented on some of the article pages mentioned here" despite Piotrus having no prior involvement with the article. This is canvassing. Cunard (talk) 06:32, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Reply, With respect, User:Piotrus has commented on similar articles, which I AfD'ed at the same time and asked to be pinged with respect to new developments in said articles. It seemed only fitting that he should be able to address this article he might've otherwise missed and would've preferred to comment on. As for commenting on HighKing's userpage, HighKing informed me how that could be construed as "canvassing" which is sometimes "frowned upon," so, presumably, he has declined to participate on that basis. More troubling, though, Cunard are your continuing to ref spam quoted sources which do not substantiate WP:SIGCOV.Doug Mehus (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cunard. Satisfies WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:16, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Wrong, . I don't think you quite understand what constitutes significant coverage and what constitutes passing mentions. --Doug Mehus (talk) 04:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Whpq's comments above. I am of the same opinion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 10:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply,, but for one thing, the links that Whpg posted don't even load so we cannot assess whether the articles meet the criteria for significant coverage. I have my doubts that they do—newspaper articles often do not establish this as they usually relate to routine coverage or regular business operations, products and services, branch openings and closures, executive appointments, charitable donations by organizations, annual financial results announcements, business partnerships, mergers and amalgamations, and the like—none of which counts as WP:SIGCOV. Moreover, one also needs to consider each of WP:ONEEVENT here (for the initial press coverage Cunard posted at launch, some of which doesn't count as significant anyway), WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:CORPDEPTH. Based on the sources listed here, after trimming out the puffery in this article, there's simply not enough significant coverage to write an article of significant corporate depth to write more than a permastub. Contrary to popular belief, Wikipedia was never intended to be an exhaustive database of companies and other topics and, I'd add, it's not a directory. Doug Mehus (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Your reasoning is flawed because you are failing to follow policy at WP:Offline sources and WP:AGF. I've noticed you have a tendency to challenge offline references which you have obviously not read, and that just simply is not a policy based way of approaching discussions where other editors are using offline references which they have read. I have access to ProQuest and other databases through my university library. If you haven't actually read a source yourself, you shouldn't be offering judgements on whether it meets significant coverage or not,4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I always assume good faith and your thinking that I am failing to assume good faith seems to, in fact, not be assuming good faith. The articles you referenced from Whpg's comment are not offline sources, but online ones that are not available. As well, re: WP:OFFLINE, it is not enough to just say the sources exist or probably exist. We actually have to read them, which you say you have in terms of the articles you mentioned in Canada Computers, but for everyone's benefit, you should summarize the articles themselves.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:53, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Online sources behind paywalls are usually from print sources as well, so effectively WP:Offline sources is applicable. I am not particularly interested in being more explicit than I have been because of your tendency to argue in circles no matter what sort of evidence (substantial or not) is presented. In other words, you like to always be right even when then the evidence states otherwise, and I don't want to waist my time in a back and forth with you that I personally find overly stressful.4meter4 (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to argue for the sake of arguing, but I just want you,, to substantiate how you feel those sources quoted provide significant coverage? You haven't done that. That's all. Doug Mehus (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.