Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patriot National 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   delete. Despite being publicly listed, there is no indication of significant coverage in reliable sources. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Patriot National Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Appears to be a non-notable financial institution. All references provided are either editorialized routine financial anouncements or from non-notable news-sources. This bank does not appear to have been the subject of significant secondary sources. Salimfadhley (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Has only 1 (unreliable) source. Not notable at all as well. Hghyux (talk to me)(talk to others) 00:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep FI is notable rank in its market & by asset size. References are from notable sources, example Morningstar - provides research on the bank for public company trading activity.  Secondary sources are sufficient.  Source David H. Purcell User:DHPurcell is notable & reliable, and has been cited in other notable publications, such as Fortune, Nature, USA Today et al. DHPurcell (talk to me)(talk to others)12:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the sort of routine promotional article we ought to discourage. . I removed the worst of it, just in case we do keep it.  DGG ( talk ) 02:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep are facts around a major U.S. community bank that almost failed in the Great Recession & did not, thereby saving U.S. taxpayers $.5-1billion a "promotional article"? If so, then we need more promotional articles about U.S. banking businesses. DHPurcell ( talk ) 16:10, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — DHPurcell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please feel free to comment and respond as often as appropriate, but please only vote once in each AfD debate. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. References in the article are directory entries, press releases, links to the company website. Ghits are the same, plus a couple of routine local items. Verifiability is satisfied, but not notability. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 16:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep Public companies are almost always considered notable per WP:CORP. The article as it stands has no reliable sources and a Google News search doesn't reveal anything great. Suggest removing the following phrase as advert: "services to individuals, small and medium-sized businesses, and professionals" User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 08:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm puzzled by your vote. Yes, WP:CORP, specifically WP:LISTED, makes the claim that "sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies...", i.e., "corporations listed on major stock exchanges". Yet you and everyone else involved in this discussion, save the SPA article creator, says that they cannot find sufficient coverage for this subject. Yes, it is listed on Nasdaq, just like Apple and Microsoft, but unlike those firms, this company's $64 million market cap barely qualifies it even as a microcap stock. That and its 2,200-share average daily volume perhaps explain the severe lack of interest from the financial press. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 11:10, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Hobbes--I think our experience has been that public companies listed on major stock exchanges are essentially always notable to the extent they can safely be presumed to be, but this is not necessarily the case with those listed on Nasdaq. The market capitalization noted by Hobbes makes this evident! DGG ( talk ) 20:23, 18 May 2012 (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.
 * Just participating in my first AfDs and I'm probably leaning more towards keeps. This seems reasonable though - just because a company that is public is usually notable, doesn't mean they are automatically so without sources. User:King4057 (COI Disclosure on User Page) 03:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)