Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinhan Bank 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 delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shinhan Bank Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

As written, fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are all primary sources. A Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase search for "Shinhan Bank Canada" has no press coverage whatsoever—all search results are trivial matters such as routine operations, passing mentions, and directory listings. As such, lacks WP:CORPDEPTH and fails WP:SIGCOV. Since it lacks standalone notability, could either delete or merge with Shinhan Bank, consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICICI Bank Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (Canada) currently in progress. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 05:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Additional references could solve WP:CORPDEPTH issues, but currently this is a non-notable subsidiary.TenderKing (talk) 13:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: A Bing search reveals multiple publications about Shinhan Bank Canada, including those in CoinDesk, The Telegram, Global Finance, and more. [1] Carajou (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Carajou, None of those are WP:SIGCOV significant coverage - they relate to routine business dealings, are tangentially related, or passing mentions. There's absolutely no rationale for standalone notability. The only reasonable alternative is to merge it into Shinhan Bank. No sources provide any, let alone enough, significant press coverage for standalone notability. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:50, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment Requesting an admin to strike Carajou's vote above. The referenced links are all internal Wikipedia articles for those publications and, in the latter case, has nothing to do with Shinhan Bank Canada. Thanks. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:58, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've never seen an admin strike a comment by a user who was not socking or making personal attacks. Why would they? ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ThatMontrealIP, Okay, fair enough, but you have to admit, Carajou seems oblivious to the fact that AfD is not strictly a vote; one must advance or at least cite logical arguments in support of their !vote. In this case, check out the external link cited. It's a link to a Bing search result about CoinDesk (ostensibly a Bitcoin blog)! Doug Mehus (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Mehus, I think the bigger concern here is the way you are aggressively interacting with others over sourcing issues across multiple AFDs. It's bordering on harassment/incivility. Perhaps you need to take a wikibreak.4meter4 (talk) 03:46, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable subsidiary. The majority of the text is about the parent bank. I don't see a lot of sources available on the web full stop, let alone those that aren't WP:CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:12, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thorough searches for sources yielded nothing of significance. I concur that the sources offered by Carajou are not convincing evidence towards WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 27 October 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.