Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banks (alphabetically)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

List of banks (alphabetically)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate list of banks with no distinguishing characteristics. WP:NOTCATALOG. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete This could be good information for Wikidata but I don't see it as a needed list for Wikipedia. Bryce Carmony (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. As it stands, it's no better than Category:Banks, and requires unnecessary work to maintain. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Do NOT Delete. As I have again rewrite page. This is now more informative. Every Bank name is showing its head office and country name. There are so many list like List of banks in the United Kingdom. List of banks (alphabetically) is my first step to create separate pages for country, which have not its separate list of banks. Every person should know which banks are working in his country. I have also fixed all Disambiguation links. Ameen Akbar (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where the nominator gets their rationale from, as the obvious intent is for this to be a list of banks that are notable (i.e., that have or merit articles). Which makes this clearly discriminate and the banks clearly distinguished. I'm also not sure what a "banking catalog" would be, as the nominator suggests, but if the intent was merely to link to WP:NOTDIR, they would do well to read the first two sentences of that section before nominating any list of articles. The only real question is then whether there is value to having a master list of all bank articles in one place rather than just sublists split by country or by type (e.g., central banks, investment banks). Clarityfiend is the only commenter to address that, and raises a valid concern about the work needed to maintain it given that its only real value would be if it were an accurate and complete conglomerate of all the sublists. One way to do that would be to convert all the by country lists into standardized sortable tables, enclose everything but the lists' entries in tags (to exclude the headers and categories), and then transclude all the separate pages to this list (which you can do with mainspace pages no less than with templates, just add a colon after the first curly brackets). This would then combine all the entries from every separate list in one table that could be sorted alphabetically. In theory that should work, though I don't know that I've ever seen a master list constructed in that way, and any structural changes to any of the individual pages could break the effect (and I can't think right now of how this list would then identify the country, given that the sublists by country would obviously not restate that within their own tables...could a table column be enclosed in without breaking the table formatting? the mind reels...). But really that's the only solution I can see to making sure such a master list has no updating lags or discrepancies from sublists. postdlf (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep – Qualifies for an article per WP:NOTDUP relative to Category:Banks. Red-linked articles that qualify for an article as per having received significant coverage (per WP:GNG) can remain, while those that do not can be de-linked if still verifiable, or removed if unverifiable. As a long article, this can be WP:SPLIT as per WP:SIZERULE. North America1000 02:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clear inclusion criteria of a notable topic. The argument for deletion due to a category existing fails WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:46, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - although there could be some discussion about how to organize the various lists found at lists of banks, certainly a list of "all" banks or at least all notable banks is useful. The page could be renamed (the "(alphabetical)" looks weird) or its scope modified to include only notable banks, but outright deletion is not in order as this is a very valid list per WP:LISTN (and WP:NOTDUP). Tigraan (talk) 11:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is notable per WP:LISTN. See Multinational Banks and Their Social and Labour Practices, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 12:00, 23 April 2015 (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.