Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banks of the United States of America


 * 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 to delete, defaulting to keep. Tyrenius 02:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

List of banks of the United States of America
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Huge, unmaintainable list. Would be much handled via a category - actually, there already is a category. Videmus Omnia 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, wp is not a place for unsourced lists. Like the nom says there is a category. meshach 02:46, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The category is not redundant to the list, and the list is sourced to the articles ... If they were all red linked then it would be an "unsourced list". The list is broken down by state which the category is not. How exactly is the category sourced? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 04:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep A category only works if an article has been created, but a list will include banks that don't in and of themselves don't meet the threshold for inclusion on Wikipedia. The article would do better to have individual citations, but then again, there was athe FDIC list of Banks at the end.Balloonman 05:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as a hopelessly broad list. WP:NOT a directory, nor an indiscriminate hosting of information. A category would suffice, as the notable banks get articles on Wikipedia. Also, you can't cite Wikipedia itself to satisfy WP:RS. -- Kesh 05:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep- meets WP:LIST (information and navigation) Thunderwing 11:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 15:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete under WP:NOT. Category works much better.  I don't understand how WP:LIST supersedes WP:NOT.  Kwsn (Ni!) 20:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nothing that can't be handled here by a category. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This could be a good list with some work and some clarity about which banks should be included. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 23:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Again WP:NOT. The list is unmaintainable.  Much more extensive and accurate lists are available elsewhere, particularly at the FDIC website.--JKeene 00:28, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Violates WP:NOT. WP:NOT is policy; WP:LIST is only a style guideline and is therefore not a reason for keeping a list that violates policy. Masaruemoto 04:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Robert Norton. Information about the financial markets in the US is highly notable. Sjakkalle (Check!)  08:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Masaruemoto & Kwsn Khu  kri  08:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This does not violate WP:NOT. It's a work in progress. Eventually, the goal would be to have an article for every notable bank on the list. At such a time, there is no doubt that the list would certainly be finite in scope and easily maintainable. If there is a problem with a particular unsourced portion of this page, you know what you can do ("edit this page"). --- RockMFR 22:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, a category would be a better solution than a static list. -- Kesh 22:33, 21 June 2007 (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.