Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nainital Bank


 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Nainital Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log )

The bank fails WP:CORP. Other than a link confirming the bank is registered with the Reserve Bank of India, there is only one potentially reliable reference (although I can't find anything about the reliability of the website). I was unable to find any other references. Inks.LWC (talk) 21:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  —Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Inks.LWC (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is enough that Bank is registered with Reserve Bank of India (RBI). This organization is responsible for Monitoring and Guideline/Rule maker for Banks. This is the supreme Institution in INDIA. so it is not right that there is not reliable references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokulchandola (talk • contribs) 03:27, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - This bank is covered regularly in the press in India over a sustained period of time. Some examples are:, , , , . -- Whpq (talk) 16:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Reasons given above. Established in 1954, it is a subsidiary of Bank of Baroda (BOB), third largest bank in India, with a net business of Rs 3,600 crore (2010). Reserve Bank of India (RBI) is central bank of Government of India so its site is reliable. See article for relevant new references added. --Ekabhishektalk 05:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete None of those is substantial coverage, and some have only passing mentions of the bank. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. This is an institution with legs (established 1954).  While not all of Whpq's offered sources are substantial, there is at least some genuinely independent coverage largely centered around the bank's struggle to meet new reserve requirements, and an attempted but failed merger with the parent Bank of Baroda designed to obviate any need to comply.  I personally don't think that this establishes significant effects on history, culture, or the field, and that this kind of significance should be required for a stand alone article about a business, but it probably does meet WP:GNG for now.  I doubt it will look that significant in five years or fifty years; and that ought to be what it takes. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:46, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TerriersFan (talk) 22:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Last year it was worth US$802.8 million, and it had over a hundred locations. Can you seriously tell me that doesn't make it a notable bank?   D r e a m Focus  03:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per coverage in reliable sources beyond a mere mention:, , , and . Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2011 (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.