Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vancity Community Investment 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 redirect to Vancity. If anybody wants to merge material, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Vancity Community Investment Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NORG, WP:Notability, and WP:Permastub, and following the lead of User:Piotrus and User:Mrschimpf, this article may not be notable or, if it is, it is either a permastub or an emerging permastub. Its edits have been few and far between over the years, often limited to trivial cleanup or adding tags. It could easily be consolidated into Vancity, which wholly owns this small Canadian bank, as a separate section, if it isn't already, as was done with CTBC Bank (Canada) into CTBC Bank. At the same time, it's worth noting this article is a textbook example of WP:Puffery. Thus, if strip out the sections of this article that are highly indicative of wikipuffery, you're left with only a few sentences and a WP:Permastub. As well, what's left is highly outdated or inaccurate. It's sold or substantially wound down its entire credit card portfolio, and is a essentially an micro-cap Canadian bank subsidiary offering only non-profit organization deposit and lending services. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Note to AfD Closer If and when this AfD is closed and it results in delete, Citizens Bank of Canada redirect will need to be deleted in tandem with this to avoid double-redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. As written, fails WP:NORG. Sources are all primary and press releases. Ouch. Ping me if there are new sources/arguments presented so I can reconsider my vote. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk ¦ contribs \ 18:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Vancity in lieu of deletion. Here is a source I found about the subject: The book notes: "Citizens Bank of Canada & Van City Created by Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (VanCity), the largest credit union in Canada, Citizens Bank provides socially responsible telephone and Internet banking. Before they invest your money in a business, they consider the company's record on human rights, military weapon and tobacco production, the environment and treatment of animals." Vancity Community Investment Bank (VCIB) was formerly known as Citizens Bank of Canada. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Courtesy ping of so he may consider this source. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I am always fine with soft delete through merge and redirect. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 05:53, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe the subject does not meet Notability which is why I do not support a standalone article. But I support a retaining the article's history under the redirect to give editors the option of merging material to the parent company and to allow editors to easily reuse some of the material (such as the introduction, the history, and the infobox) as the basis for a new article if new sources surface in the future. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * With respect, I do not think preservation of the editing history and prior contributions is a valid reason for keeping in place an unlikely or unhelpful redirect when Vancity is already the parent article. As for the infobox, those are sooo easy to add and can be done in all of 10 minutes (less depending on how fulsomely one fills it out). Wikipedia was never intended to provide attribution to its contributions and editors need to realize this. We're editors; we do not have bylines. Attribution and ownership of our edits is to Wikipedia. Moreover, administrators can undelete articles, with editing history, and send them to the Draft namespace should this non-notable bank become notable at some point in the future. Thus, the editing history is not lost; it's just hidden and only available to admins, until such time as there is merit to restore the article, as I understand it. --Doug Mehus (talk) 16:29, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect. I so no evidence of significant coverage from multiple reliable independent secondary sources and thus does not pass WP:NCORP. The source presented here strikes me of questionable reliability and even if it is reliable it's definitely not significant coverage. However, Vancity is a legitimate redirect target but this current piece of non-notable oncorporate promotionalism should be deleted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , Thanks, I agree completely. It fails WP:SIGCOV and I don't see how Vancity Community Investment Bank is a helpful redirect to Vancity since it's sooo much longer and Vancity is already the article URL of the larger entity.Doug Mehus (talk) 23:18, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge/redirect to Vancity per above. It's a possible search term so a REDIRECT is helpful for those using outside wiki search engines.4meter4 (talk) 01:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to Vancity, even if there isn't much to actually merge to there, at least not with WP:RS. There seems to be more results for Citizens Bank of Canada, although nothing strikingly notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 17:25, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.