Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ethical banks


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 15:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

List of ethical banks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although I accept that 'ethical banking' is a real phenomenon, this list is inevitably problematic.
 * The nature of the title gives it an innate POV slant that is going to be very difficult to overcome (and are we saying that banks not included in this list are not ethical?).
 * The criteria for inclusion are unclear, all banks presumably consider themselves 'ethical'.
 * It's a pretty broad term that is impossible to objectively assess. Just look at the section in the main article about judging what is ethical. If Mill, Kant and Aristotle can't agree then how will Wikipedia editors?
 * Finally, what one source might describe as 'ethical' will vary from what another might.

A redirection to Ethical banking could be an option but I oppose that on the grounds that there is currently no such list in that page, and I would avoid ever creating one for precisely the reasons given here. Hugsyrup 12:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Ethical is a subjective phrase, and even if the term ethical bank reffered to a bank with a specific type of business model, there is no objective way of determining whether a bank matches the criteria. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  13:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only banks identified as such by reliable sources should be included (e.g. The Guardian, The Ecologist, a Journal of Business Ethics article), but that's an issue for cleanup, not deletion. The delete lvoters are focusing on the general meaning of the word "ethical" rather than the specialized, financial one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Nope. Read the second half of my sentence. -- Puzzledvegetable Is it teatime already?  20:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * In addition, how are we to know that those articles are referring to a 'specialized financial meaning'? None of the three links you provide refer to any objective specialized meaning, they simply describe a bank as ethical without further explanation, or describe it as a strategic positioning of that bank. Indeed, the Ecologist article notably places ethical bank in scare quotes every time, which rather illustrates my point. Hugsyrup 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTDIR. Ethical is a point-of-view that may differ depending on who defines something as ethical. Ajf773 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hugsyrup, WP:OR, and WP:NPOV. -Crossroads- (talk) 03:32, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a super subjective term, all the more so considering how long banks can exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nom and others; this is highly subjective and therefore highly problematic. Even if we only listed those banks that were noted by independent sources to be "ethical", this is subject to change without additional coverage. Nope. Pegnawl (talk) 21:29, 13 August 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.