Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Bank

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

:({{Find sources|Urban Bank}})

As per WP:COMPANY, notability not established by secondary sources. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 05:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep, per my rationale in the Banco Filipino nomination. This bank was a publicly-listed company and was the subject of a very controversial closure fourteen years ago, which generated significant coverage in third-party sources (such as [http://www.urbanbank.info/phil_inquirer.htm this], [http://www.philstar.com/business/98900/urban-bank-collapse-not-systemic-merrill-lynch this], [http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/04/30/12/p73-m-kickback-urban-execs this] and [http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/90028/news/nation/sc-approves-filing-of-criminal-raps-vs-urban-bank-execs this]) both then and now. If there are other sources, they would not be online, as Philippine newspapers rarely have archives of articles before 2003-2004 on the Internet. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment re Philippine newspapers rarely have archives of articles before 2003-2004 on the Internet — Google News Archive has scans of the Philippine Daily Inquirer going back to the 90s. Search [https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Anews.google.com+%22urban+bank%22 site:news.google.com "urban bank"]. 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• It's not complete. Only the Inquirer, the Manila Standard and the Manila Times have online archives, and the Inquirer archive is from 2000 to 2007, not the 1990s. Anything significant about Urban Bank prior to the bankruptcy would be in the 1990s, which the archive doesn't cover (the Standard archive, which is from 1984 to 2003, doesn't have much on the bank either). Other major papers, such as the Manila Bulletin and the Philippine Star, don't have online archives that date back that far. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:43, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Actually, sources don't have to be online. You can use offline sources as well as online sources or even solely offline sources. Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep despite the significant problems of the article due to the amount of WP:RS coverage which demonstrates notability. I am going through and adding some citations as I am able. That said, I understand the temptation to WP:TNT this. Sky Harbor deserves a very large WP:TROUT for creating multiple articles with dozens of kilobytes of text and zero citations in them [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Urban_Bank&oldid=53491295][https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banco_Filipino&oldid=53540102] (not to mention those "Comparisons" sections that may very well be unsourceable WP:SYNTHESIS) and then leaving them to gather dust for eight years. Even in 2006, that was not an acceptable practice, and it would be nice if this AfD motivated him to finally step up and add at least some sources to these giant uncited walls of text, notwithstanding that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Regards, 61.10.165.33 (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• I don't see why you're making this about me rather than the merits of the article. Wikipedia is inherently collaborative: people are supposed to improve the article when they see it if they see something lacking. Like what I told Raykyogrou0 in the Banco Filipino nomination, if you're so concerned about it, why not be bold and improve the article yourself? I don't own the article: Wikipedians should be capable of tending to articles they have no expertise on by actually conducting research and being hands-on. (Also, please note that I am only one person who does this work, and if you're knowledgeable about Urban Bank's failure, then please, go ahead, jump in, and work on the article, rather than criticizing me for not doing so because I decided to move on with generating other content.) --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 00:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oh, so that's how this is supposed to work? You create a poorly-sourced article and others are just supposed to come in and fix it later for you? Raykyogrou0 (Talk) 11:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Times have changed since I started writing this article, back in a time when Wikipedia was more lenient with referencing standards, and well before you started editing Wikipedia. Take note that this article in its current form was written in 2006, when I was still in high school. When one starts writing other articles about a country which is underrepresented on Wikipedia (and started doing more off-wiki work in the process), it is reasonable to expect that the good will of Wikipedians will help improve the project as a whole, including this article should they come across it. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 11:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Keep - evidently - and don't agree with WP:TROUT for making stubs on notable banks well up to WP:IDEALSTUB. The more important point is that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. The 1000s of bytes wasted in these 20 AFDs and prods could have been used by the nominator improving the articles. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:24, 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 12:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Close/Keep AFD isn't used as a clean up, Also per HTD. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:47, 15 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.