Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wintrust Financial

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 no consensus (leaning keep, given that sources have been added)--Ymblanter (talk) 08:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wintrust Financial

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

Entire page copied word-for-word from a website - ^theWOLFchild 05:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exhibit 'A', Exhibit 'B'. FYI - ^theWOLFchild 10:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated article with source. Information directly from company's website, simply stating matter of fact. Bakerboy448 (talk) 05:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Nordic Dragon 08:46, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nominator gives a reason that is good grounds for a CSD but not for an AfD. Wintrust is a medium-sized regional bank in the midwest and the article shouldn't have any difficulty establishing notability. A few more references would help though. Fiachra10003 (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be honest, I haven't done many page deletion nominations, and so I brought this to AfD. But please note that page has been changed since I tagged it. It was initially a direct-copy from another webpage, word for word, from beginning to end. That is why I tagged it. If you feel it's been improved since then, so be it. I have no opinion either way. I'll leave it up to the community. - ^theWOLFchild 16:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! Technically copyright violations should be reported for speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO rather than brought to this forum, but you did the right thing in escalating. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I basically forgot all about CSD. I blanked the page to protect the project and filed AfD. I'll know for next time. (whenever that might be... ) - ^theWOLFchild 19:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best actually because none of the current article has better solid signs of notability and my searches found links at Books, News and browsers but simply nothing convincingly better. SwisterTwister talk 07:21, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some more from Chicago Tribune and from American Banker that seem to meet WP:SECONDARY. I'll keep looking. These guys are now the second or third biggest bank in Metro Chicago now, depending on how you count. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good job of improving the article! It was unacceptable in every way at the time of nomination and should have been speedy deleted (but fixing it was also acceptable of course). I see enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG and the most important part of its notability their naming rights on billboards for 2 major league baseball teams. Royal broil 14:42, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run-of-the-mill bank, article makes no claim of notability. Minor news article about bank having some trouble during the 2008-2009 worldwide financial crisis does not help. Speciate (talk) 18:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, most articles on Wikipedia are run-of-the -mill. The question is whether the article meets WP:GNG or not. There has been enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. Fiachra10003 (talk) 17:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 19:56, 8 March 2016 (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.