Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WeRe Bank

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 defaulting to Keep. This is w/o prejudice to a future nomination though I would suggest a reasonable interlude before sending this back to AfD. Perhaps the article can be improved. Ad Orientem (talk) 00:25, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WeRe Bank

WeRe Bank (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)

Fails the notability guidelines. Cannot find coverage in independent reliable sources. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is a scam, but it may be a notable scam. The name "were bank" consisting of two frequent words makes it difficult to find references. Jack N. Stock (talk) 04:39, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I promoted this page from the vast sea of junk that is [[[WP:STALE]] userspace because I don't believe that the notability of a company is in play here, but rather that this is a notable long term scam that several government bodies have deemed notable enough to issue warnings about. It's also an older scam, so I doubt there will be much future coverage and the online accessibility of material may decrease, but the quality of sourcing suggests notability. Legacypac (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think I remember an FBI warning on this scam, but I couldn't find it. If I saw it, that was a couple of years ago. Jack N. Stock (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This should be restored to User:4shires/WeRe Bank as opposed to deleted if it is found unsuitable for the mainspace per WP:UP/RFC2016 (B4), i.e. If a draft is moved to the mainspace by a user other than its author, then found to be unsuitable for the mainspace for reasons which wouldn't apply in the userspace, it should be returned to the userspace (move). — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 09:47, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop stalking my edits Godsy. You are following me around like a puppy dog. Godsy also conveniently forgets the community reached agreement that material deemed unsuitable for mainspace should not be retained indefinately. I think it belongs in mainspace, but if the community disagrees, there is no point keeping a WP:STALE draft forever where the author is long gone. Legacypac (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was deprodded with the rationale put forward by Godsy above. Then moved back to draftspace. Then moved back to mainspace. As I said in the prod: Because of the commonality of the name, very difficult to research. I couldn't come up with enough in-depth coverage to show it merits inclusion. In its current incarnation, it is mostly OR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:16, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:56, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:58, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• much as it rankles my inner deletionist-- userfy. I think to Godsy's user space, with the understanding that progress will be made in making this into an article. Considering how long it takes for something to be considered too stale, I think we have a while.Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continued Or back to where it came from. It is clearly not ready for main space. Were it not for the strictures of stale, I would say delete. But it's not dlohkipedia, so meh.Dlohcierekim (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy/Rename no objections to moving it to Legacypac's personal draft space or its original location; the title needs to reflect WP:PROFRINGE if it is kept in main space. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:12, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, to Legacypac's. That's the place.Dlohcierekim (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Apparently a notable fraud. There does appear to be a reasonable basis for changing thetitle sdo as not to misrepresent the contents. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 14 June 2017 (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.