Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Security 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Security Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Not notable. The only ref points to a pdf of the bank disclosing its assets to the public. Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding. Raykyogrou0 ( Talk ) 10:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. The bank is a publicly-listed company and is covered in several third-party sources (see this) --Sky Harbor (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Which of those "sources" actually specifically establish the bank's notability? The first link talks about it opening new branches.  The second is about a bank in Milwaukee.  The third talks about a United Security Bank.  The fourth is about a new branch. The fifth is about a First Security Bank.  I can go on and on.  Perhaps you should add specific links.   Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The first source, about new branches, is actually useful; it means business is booming. The seventh link talks about the bank buying another bank, another valid source. I guess we should like stop using Google News and search on individual news websites now since it's busted now... – H T  D  10:47, 17 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, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. – H T  D  12:07, 14 January 2014 (U+TC)
 * And copy-pasted again. Is it notable though? Is it really?  Do you have any proof of that?  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * This copy-paste isn't about the merits of this AFD. WP:COMPANY states that since this bank is listed at the stock exchange, the nominator has to look for sources first before nominating. Judging by the edit history, this didn't happen. You can nominate this again if you failed in finding sources. – H T  D  10:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, it's more like "you copy-pasted the above statement in over 10 different afd's, without (probably) even looking at the article or putting forward sources to establish the alleged notability". (ps. what does the edit history have to do with not finding sources?) Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 13:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but did you just describe what you did not do? You didn't find sources for at least one of the 20 AFDs you did as what was encouraged by WP:COMPANY? Even just one?
 * As for edit histories, if you tagged the article a month ago, that's an indication that you at least made an effort. You prodded and AFDed in a matter of days. There was no indication of effort to find sources as per WP:COMPANY and WP:BEFORE. – H T  D  14:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of "there were no sources to find" don't you understand? Btw, this article was tagged since March 2013. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you supply me of the Google search that you used? – H T  D  10:37, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 02:08, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason, the Google News search sucks now, since it only works for news articles within the past 30 days. The link found at WP:BEFORE is actually useful to use now. For this one, I used a normal web search, restricted the country to "Philippines", and by the second page I found some; the first page was all about their own websites, and those can't be used. At any point, Google News can't be used now and I suggest using local news websites. This one at GMA News actually got 310 results; this one at Inquirer got 1,680(!) results. – H T  D  11:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, for some reason, if you look for ""security bank" awards" in normal Google search, and restrict it to webpages from the Philippines, you'd come up with plenty of sources by the second page (as the first page is mostly their stuff). Google News search isn't useful anymore unless it happened within the last 30 days. – H T  D  11:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ( The GMA News link didn't show your results, so I had to search it again ) Okay, consider my nomination withdrawn. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 12:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's their fault. It happened to me too earlier. You just have to use the search box at the main search page instead of the usual search box seen everywhere on that website. – H T  D  12:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. - →Davey 2010→ →Talk to me!→  18:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * For the third time, this isn't a matter of cleanup but rather one about notability. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 10:35, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * IMHO I think you've done it for clean up, Also as others have said you haven't even bothered finding sources..... (You'll be pleased to know I'm not planning on pasting this 20+ times neither!. →Davey 2010→  →Talk to me!→  15:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, nobody asked for your opinion of my intentions.  If I wanted it to be cleaned up, I would have tagged it as such and not prodded it. Do you have any actual arguments or do you want to keep on with this off-topic thread?  Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep/Close - per "Nothing has been done to improve the article between prodding and deprodding" - this comment makes it clear again that this drive by adding of prod and AFD tags to Philippine bank articles was done with the intent of coercing other editors to improve articles. This is not the purpose of either Prod or AFD and should be understood and not repeated. In ictu oculi (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I have said it before about three different times. If I wanted the article cleaned up and not deleted, I would have tagged it as such. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The comments saying "Speedy keep" or "close" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0  ( Talk ) 06:04, 17 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.