Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/State Investors Bancorp


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

State Investors Bancorp

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

DePRODed as being  large enough  to  require discussion. No indication of significance or importance. Being a public traded company  does not  assert notability. Routine stock market reports, corporate listings,  press releases, and primary  sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, and WP:ORGDEPTH. WP:NOTYELLOW. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - A little harder to support this one due to its size, but it has been around for 120 years which for a smaller bank is probably notable for simply having stayed independent and surviving for so long. In any case, appears to have enough independent third party refs to meet WP:GNG. I don't see how WP:NOTYELLOW even applies. VMS Mosaic (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per VMS Mosaic In ictu oculi (talk) 02:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep I have been very skeptical about such articles, and have nominated a good many of them for deletion. This firm appears sufficiently large to be given the benefit of the doubt. Corporate size is not a formal criterion, but it is not irrelevant. We need some basis for decision, and the GNG doesn';t help much, because it's generally ambiguous if the materual in the sources is significant coverage in the usual sense. &#39;DGG (at NYPL)&#39; (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep This financial institution is publicly traded, has been around for over a century and has marked itself as notable in legal, banking, and business circles. Yes, it needs to have some work done here, and the article needs some fleshing out, but I think it serves a very valid purpose. I know that Wiki is not a business directory, but this entry is notable in my opinion and for what it is worth.  BerkeleyLaw1979   00:47, 28 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.