Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Citibank Canada

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. Consensus seems to be that this is a notable topic, albeit one in need of some cleanup. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Citibank Canada

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page reads much like an advertisement and contains little, if any, added information. It appears to be an AfD candidate under Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. Moreover, we could also consider the CSD process under similar grounds. Proposed alternative is to simply merge the first two sentences of the article under Citigroup, possibly under a Canada-specific section. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:45, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added Comment Note, for example, that the last paragraph is irrelevant and the second last paragraph is outdated with Citibank Canada having sold its CitiFinancial division to private interests and rebranded as Fairstone. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – obviously notable, but agree the article needs some work. However, AfD is not cleanup. – bradv🍁 01:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Brad - Wouldn't it be fair, though, to merge this article into a section of the Citigroup article, thereby deleting this page? Or you saying we could still do that by being bold but that adding a redirect is preferable to deleting the article? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Dmehus, no, this is a notable enough topic on its own. It just needs someone to gather some sources and write a better article. – bradv🍁 01:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Bradv, appreciate the reply and clarification, but often in global organizations, I've noticed that Wikipedia will include geographic sections for each of the country's operations. It seems to me that even with writing a better article, we'd still only 3-5 short paragraphs, which doesn't strike me as too long or a Canada-specific section of the Citigroup article. Can you, perhaps, provide some colour on the basis for determining whether to merge an ultra-short stub article into a parent company article or not? Additionally, if this article was to be kept, would you add your voice of support to a move request whereby we rename the article to Citi Canada in accordance with Wikipedia:CommonName? (It's no longer using the name Citibank Canada in a legal or operating sense and Citi's Canadian operations include myriad subsidiaries; thus, Citi Canada from its Canadian division website seems like the best for that.) Doug Mehus (talk) 01:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Dmehus, I have no problem with a rename, but please wait until the AfD concludes. – bradv🍁 01:55, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  Bradv Okay, thanks for clarifying that. Nate, to the second part of my question below, please disregard. Also, to you or Brad, is there an easier/faster way of tagging someone besides manually typing the square brackets and the word User, etc.? Doug Mehus (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD isn't cleanup (and the last paragraph is fine, no problem mentioning its CBA membership and CDIC deposit backing; that's a standard paragraph in most articles), stubs are just fine...and nom, you couldn't have made those corrections to the article yourself? If this is kept, do move to Citi Canada. Nate • (chatter) 01:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply to Nate No, I'd planned to make those changes, but would've done so under the Canada (or similar) section of Citigroup. Nonetheless, I appreciate your support for moving this article to Citi Canada. Can I tag you and Brad when I flag the post for a move, so as to add your voice of support there? Can I simultaneously tag this article for moving while AfD debate is still ongoing? Let me know, and I'm happy to do it. Doug Mehus (talk) 01:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I can move it upon close with my move rights, so no need to tag it with that template. Nate • (chatter) 02:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply Okay, but what do you mean by move rights? I can move articles as well, but I thought something like that should go through a move discussion, no? So it doesn't get reverted by someone. Doug Mehus (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment You should be able to move it yourself at the close of discussion, then. Move discussions are usually for moves which are likely to be challenged; this likely will go through without any issues since it's a known change in corporate branding (and the former title will be retained as a redirect). Nate • (chatter) 03:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Reply Okay, thanks, Nate. That makes sense. Plus, we can always link, in the page's Talk page to this discussion on the likely uncontroversial page move request. For clarity, could I also have moved President's Choice Financial to PC Financial fairly uncontroversially, given the policy(ies) I cited? Feel free to comment on Talk:President's Choice Financial if so. Doug Mehus (talk) 13:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~~ OxonAlex - talk 03:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This meets WP:NCORP on its own. Merging it to the Citigroup page would be counterproductive as a section on this would likely be recommended to be split "out" from that page and have its own.--CNMall41 (talk) 15:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fix this mess then Merge it. Trillfendi (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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.