Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Exchange Bank

:{{la|International Exchange Bank}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [http://toolserver.org/~snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/International_Exchange_Bank Stats])

:({{Find sources|International Exchange Bank}})

Notability not established per WP:COMPANY. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. The bank was a publicly-listed company prior to its acquisition by UnionBank, and is covered in several reliable sources (see [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22international%20exchange%20bank%22%20site:news.google.com/newspapers&source=newspapers this]). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Which sources specifically establish its notability? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep per Google Book and News. In ictu oculi (talk) 12:03, 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, they a 2nd nomination may be pursued. –HTD 12:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is it really notable though? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• You tell me. Since Google News is busted (as seen from its absence in the "Find sources" template above), have you tried searching at Philippine news websites? –HTD 10:17, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
• The only relevant [http://globalnation.inquirer.net/cebudailynews/enterprise/view/20060517-1999/Merger_of_Union_Bank,_iBank_to_be_completed_in_6_months link] talks about its acquisition by Union Bank of the Philippines, so it should redirect there. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 01:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• For some reason, if we used the same link as above, I didn't see your source. On the first page of the link supplied earlier above, I came up with two articles that clearly WP:RS: [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2479&dat=20001124&id=q1g1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=gSUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2764,27430132 this] and [http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1370&dat=19941229&id=ra8mAAAAIBAJ&sjid=PgsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4279,4933078 this], which talk nothing about the merger; in fact the second one talks about its formation. –HTD 11:18, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Okay, consider my nomination withdrawn then. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
• Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 18:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• This isn't cleanup. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 12:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. The comments saying "speedy keep" or "keep" are not actual speedy keep criterion. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 06:51, 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.