Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippine Postal Savings 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. Closing early per WP:SNOW Mark Arsten (talk) 07:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Philippine Postal Savings Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. National postal savings bank of the Philippines, with a long history; lots of sources are evident from the usual searches.  I added a couple.  Observing the procedures set forth at WP:BEFORE would be helpful before taking important organizations like these to AfD. --Arxiloxos (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful if articles should not take an AfD to have references added to them if it has been tagged with for over two years.  To be entirely true, you added one and not a couple.  Also, how does that one reference establish the bank's notability?  It doesn't exactly verify the claims in the article.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 11:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I added two sources, not one, and they are both substantive articles about this institution. The standards and procedures you seem to be following for your recent bank-related AfDs and PRODS seem to me to be out of line with the general consensus.  --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. It looked like one. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * How could it "look like one"? - your contrib history shows only seconds between these bank Prods and Afds, no sources added. And yet when others look in Google Books and Google News they find sources, so how do you explain that "It looked like one"? if you did not check for sources yourself before nominating? In ictu oculi (talk) 04:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * (Do I really have to spell everything out for you?) It looked like one link to me when I clicked the diff from my watchlist which is why I added the tag.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Obvious Keep - Why did the nominator not add sources such as Kemmerer Postal Savings: An Historical and Critical Study  to the article rather than AFDing it? Wikipedia suffers a dearth of copy-contributing editors, particularly noticable in WikiProject Philippines. It would have taken the same time/energy to check Google Books and add sources as placing an AFD. In ictu oculi (talk) 17:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * If so, how come you haven't added them? Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're shifting the goalposts. We wouldn't be in this mess to begin with if you had taken the initiative to improve the article, rather than nominating it for deletion because you think otherwise. --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Or, or. (and this is just me thinking out loud) You could have just created a properly-sourced article four years ago. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 11:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're imposing editing standards in a time when those editing standards were more lenient than they are today. The editing standards of 2010 are different from 2014, and as I mentioned in the Urban Bank nomination, I look forward to relying on the good will and community spirit of Wikipedia and individual Wikipedians to help out their fellow editors should they come across it. --Sky Harbor (talk) 12:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose editing standards were more lenient back then, (most other language wikipedias are still as lenient) but that still doesn't make this article's subject as notable as you think it was when it was created. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You know that consensus can change (and, in this case, it has changed), right? Policy is as much the letter as it is the spirit of the law, and you seem to be conveniently ignoring the latter for the sake of the former. (Also, as my edit history suggests, for the most part, I don't make articles willy-nilly, so yes, I stand by the fact that when I made this article back in 2010, it was, and I bet it still is, notable.  You seem to be forgetting what the spirit of stubs are.) --Sky Harbor (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia was more lenient in 2006, not 2010. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks to be more lenient than 2014, apparently. --Sky Harbor (talk</b>) 11:26, 16 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NRVE. Topic notability is based upon the availability of sources, and is not based upon the state of sourcing in articles themselves. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Where are these available sources then? Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Speedy close. WP:COMPANY states that "Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion." It appears this was not met, if that has been done, then a 2nd nomination may be pursued. – H T  D  12:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This company isn't even publicly traded. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  04:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't about cleanup. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 12:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion.  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:13, 16 January 2014 (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.