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. ✗plicit 00:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank[edit]

SpareBank 1 SR-Bank (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Article reads like an obvious advertisement Uwsi (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it was written 16 years ago by a user with no connection to the bank, does not contain advertising language and is about a company listed on the country's stock exchange. The sourcing is bad though, since the requirements were more lenient 16 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 07:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article does not "read[] like an obvious advertisement": it provides neutral facts about the bank and its history. I agree with Geschichte that the present sourcing is clearly subpar, but there seems to be quite a bit of coverage available in Google News, Google Scholar, Norwegian-language outlets, etc., and in any event notability hasn't been contested. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 20:30, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. improved intro paragraph to make it less promotional. I have added a couple of new citations. Seems like a descent size bank from Norway.Chelokabob (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For now, I see no advertising tone in the article.--Art&football (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (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.