Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacksonville Bancorp


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:59, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Jacksonville Bancorp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No actual evidence of notability. I see a lot of citations - all of them automated, press releases or generic company biographies, as it were. Google isn't, obviously, conclusive, but it's the only tool I have available for further hunting, and when I use it I see much of the same - stock reports and generic biographies. Ironholds (talk) 17:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. Banks do tend to get a lot of press, and we have articles about lots of them (see Category:Banks based in Florida.)  "Jacksonville Bank" gets about 150 hits on HighBeam but some are false hits and of those that aren't, the great bulk of them are of the press release/routine financial statement variety that  describes. It's a relatively young bank and so perhaps not as likely to be notable as older ones. Google results suggest that the 2010 acquisition of Atlantic Bancgroup/Oceanside Bank seems to have gotten some attention in mainstream press, but paywalls make it hard to see how substantial this coverage has been. --Arxiloxos (talk) 19:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e deckertalk 17:05, 18 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, obviously, it is a publicly traded company, so there exist tons of documentation about it. And it is of quite significant size too. -- do  ncr  am  02:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * if it's so obvious, could you provide that documentation? --Ironholds (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Any company that is publicly traded in the U.S., i.e. whose shares are listed on NASDAQ or another stock exchange, must make extensive disclosures, required by the Securities and Exchange Commission. Annual reports:  formal 10-K statements.  Tons more, all provided at the SEC's EDGAR website. here is a search run on "JAXB" at the Edgar site.  And here is the most recent 10-K.  These filings are reliable...they are pored over and audited and legally vetted.  Hope this helps you. -- do  ncr  am  02:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, in other words, they're legally obligated publications authored by the subject? That'd seem to fail both the 'independent' and 'third-party' requirements of the notability guidelines. --Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The 10-K report includes substantive discussion on business and prospects and risks, and contains financials, and is reliable as a source for financial info and so on. There is a good amount in the 10-K which could be used in the article. -- do  ncr  am  03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And any publicly traded company is written about by many others, by stock analysts, investment banks, and so on. For JAXB, i see that with $115 you can buy an investment report here, which i quickly found by browsing at finance.yahoo.com.   There will exist a lot of investment reports, behind paywalls for the most part.  There will be some national news coverage in Wall Street Journal and other sources, from time to time.  And as a major employer and lender in its area, there will exist plenty of local news coverage. -- do  ncr  am  03:04, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ....none of which you've shown. It's not enough to say "well of course these sources exist...somewhere...". I'm sure the 10-K is incredibly detailed, but it's also neither independent nor third-party in nature. --Ironholds (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Google Finance's summary, at https://www.google.com/finance?q=jaxb, and Yahoo Finance's profile at http://finance.yahoo.com/q/pr?s=JAXB suffice on their own to meet wp:GNG. Third party. Reliable.  Clicking on the link for investor reports from the Yahoo profile currently leads you to list of 10 available investor reports during last five weeks alone, all substantially about the firm.  By the nature of U.S. public companies' regulation and the vast investor interest in information about them, plus market forces that respond to the investor interest, any public company in the U.S. obviously meets Wikipedia notability. -- do  ncr  am  16:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, they absolutely don't; are you kidding? Third party, yes. Reliable, no - they consist exclusively of information sourced from other locations, which then have to be traced back. Heck, the only piece of prose on the google page is sourced from a Reuters page that's generated for any publicly-listed company, from information provided by that company. If you think publicly-listed companies are notable by default, go propose an amendment to the company notability guidelines. --Ironholds (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I won't keep replying, but want to observe you are not changing your mind, when I did provide sources that you asked for. Also, I didn't participate in any past debate about notability of NYSE- and NASDAQ-listed public companies, but find my way to wp:LISTED which refers to that, suggesting there were plenty others having my views, and just suggesting diplomatically that while it is reasonable to presume plenty of sourcing will exist, any individual case can be resolved by just demonstrating the sources (avoiding the debate about all such firms).  I have done that.
 * And, I simply don't get what you question in the Google/Reuters profile, for example. Do you disbelieve a statement like "The Bank is a community-oriented savings bank engaged primarily in the business of attracting retail deposits from the general public in its market area and using such funds, together with borrowings and funds from other sources, to originate mortgage loans secured by one- to four-family residential real estate, commercial and agricultural real estate and home equity loans."  Do you think that or any other statement is not factual?  Do you seriously believe the bank is lying about that, and others are repeating it?  In a business environment where factual misstatements would have big monetary consequences in shareholder lawsuits?  I think you and I are coming from very different places, which is okay, you can believe what you want to and so will I.  You can reply back but I probably won't comment further.  Thanks. -- do  ncr  am  23:37, 24 March 2014 (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.