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.
No indication of notability, no sourcing in article, or found with a bit of a search, to establish notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - No !vote yet. Just noting that newspapers.com has an awful lot of hits. Haven't had time to properly go through it, but it has all the features of an important local company. The key will be finding something beyond local coverage. Bits and pieces in e.g. NYT, but nothing great yet... — Rhododendritestalk \\ 19:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I reject this request to delete this page. It seems that the requester for deletion has ulterior motives, having first deleted a well cited section before declaring the entire page the subject of deletion. What arrogance. Unfortunately, that’s not how Wikipedia works. Rather than hiding behind tomfoolery, why not add citations for the puffery otherwise written on the page?Hudsonmohawk (talk) 21:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right, I've made over ten thousand edits in anticipation of this moment. I'm a super deep cover operative. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
User:Hudsonmohawk, I think your comment was most inappropriate. In any case User:ScottishFinnishRadish is a respected editor and he has made invaluable contributions to the Wikipedia project. Gentleman wiki (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, but your conceitedness aside, deleting sections about a entity’s practices that are well cited is not an example of good editing. Please stop doing that. You didn’t even try and talk about it. Rather, you wrote a condescending message about the sandbox, called me a vandal, and marked the page for deletion. I think that is most inappropriate. Thanks. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 05:35, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I marked the page for deletion because there is it doesn't appear to be notable. I do apologize for hitting the wrong button in RedWarn, I should have used the non-constructive edit revert. On Wikipedia we don't insert large sections based entirely on primary sources. If this were notable and WP:DUE there would be coverage in secondary sources, which is what is required. This also goes to the reason I nominated the article for deletion, no coverage in secondary sources, other than WP:ROUTINE coverage in local sources about a local business. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:24, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hudsonmohawk: There is a key rule to how Wikipedia works: focus on content, not contributors. The problem here was the material you added, which was a clear violation of our neutral point of view policy. That doesn't mean it's "biased" or "vandalism" or whatnot -- it just gives undue weight to an aspect of the subject. Wikipedia does not include material just because it exists and someone on Wikipedia says it's important. It needs to be recognized as important by an independent reliable source first (newspapers, magazines, journals, books, high-quality websites, etc. with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy). SFR should not have labeled your addition "vandalism" because it clearly was not, but they have admitted as much above. What is not appropriate is to respond by focusing on SFR, talking about ulterior motives, etc. Assume good faith and rely on building consensus rather than repeatedly inserting your content or you'll wind up blocked from editing (not a threat -- just the reality of how Wikipedia works). — Rhododendritestalk \\ 13:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rhododendrites: While some of your comments are certainly valid, I will point out that the act of overzealously marking a page for deletion and for vandalism when another individual user is making edits, citations, and updates is just as much a focus on people and not content. It seems on first look that the consensus you wish to build is one where I am wrong for having called out SFR's ulterior motives and he is right for being a big contributor to Wikipedia. The reality is SFR is the only one here who has gone outside the norm for some reason unknown. All I have done is point that out that digression, while continuing to add the recognized and important secondary sources as had been planned from the beginning, in accordance with the neutral point of view policy. Finally, this entire back and forth is off topic, since we are trying to figure out if the page should be deleted, as a result of SFR's overzealous and frivolous report. I continue to reject SFR's assertion and suggest that the back and forth about my content and my not editing fast enough for a single other user's liking be moved to the article's main talk page. Thanks for not threatening me! Hudsonmohawk (talk) 15:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you be so kind as to chill with the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions? I have an over 80 percent accuracy rate at AfD [1], and as I've said a number of times using the vandalism revert rather than another was a mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would you be so kind as to revert your report for this page to be deleted or close out the thread? I deny having made any personal attacks or bad faith assumptions and request you stay on topic or find a different forum for your accusations. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 18:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the act of overzealously marking a page for deletion and for vandalism when another individual user is making edits, citations, and updates is just as much a focus on people and not content - the "vandalism" part aside (addressed above), what is the difference between "overzealously marking a page for deletion" and just marking a page for deletion? But no, there's not a problem with the nomination. Deletion won't be based on the state of the article but the notability of the subject, so what matters is showing significant coverage in reliable sources here rather than what's in the article. If it's notable, a deletion discussion shouldn't amount to much. Neither these accusations nor SFR's stats really help to push this thread forward, so my two cents is to move on from talking about the legitimacy of this nomination and focus on showing notability. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 23:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Since you asked, the difference between what I describe to be overzealous marking versus marking in due course, is that I was actively working on the issues that concerned both you and SFR: Specifically, the documentation of secondary sources to accord with the neutral point of view policy was ongoing at the time of the deletion request and SFR knew this. What makes the action overzealous is the decision to mark a page for deletion that was actively being updated at the time of the indication. It was not a due course report. Rather, it was an action in reaction to a dispute as part of war plan that SFR believes he should be able to execute with impunity, because of his high rate of activity on Wikipedia. While SFR's report at the time may not have been factually incorrect, it was overzealous because he knew I was simultaneously updating the document and decided to make the report anyway. The point of bringing up the vandalism again is that SFR admits to it, which also substantiates that the deletion report was presumptuous at best and paints the deletion request in a false light. Finally, if the issue was secondary sources, that issue has been long resolved as may be ascertained by a quick glance at the citations section of the page. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment - I added some newspaper coverage. There's a lot more available. Do not delete. Peter Flass (talk) 16:42, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ScottishFinnishRadish:Money Magazine rating it the safest bank in NY. It's a local bank, so most of the coverage would be local. Ithaca is out of area. Peter Flass (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Per WP:HEY. Passes GNG and WP:NORG based on the sources added to the article, and a few more I located through my university library. See below.4meter4 (talk) 22:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gerson, Vicki (2001-06-01). "Upstate N.Y. Bank Expands Switching Capacity". Bank systems + technology. 38 (6): 54.
Business Editors & High-Tech Staff Writers (2001-03-06). "Adirondack Trust Company Chooses S2 Systems' OpeN/2 for ATM Network Expansion". Business Wire: 1. ((cite journal)): |author= has generic name (help)
"Mobile Source Capture from Fiserv Gains Momentum among Banks and Credit Unions; Adirondack Trust Company Now Live". Investment Weekly News: 587. 2011-12-31.
MICHAEL QUINT (1995-10-25). "Governments Bypassing Banks to Pool Money in Fund". The New York Times.
RICHARD D. LYONS (1982-11-08). "IN SARATOGA SPRINGS, A MORTGAGE-RECALL FIGHT". The New York Times.
Knudson, Paul T (November 2012). "Preservationists as Qualitative Growth Actors: A Case Study of Saratoga Springs, New York". Humanity & society. 36 (4): 326–353. (peer reviewed)
Knudson, Paul T (2012-04-01). "Regional Industrial Recruitment in Upstate New York". State & local government review. 44 (1): 21–32. (peer reviewed)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:31, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tentative Keep It appears that there is substantial coverage in local news for this firm. I imagine especially in the archives of smaller/local oriented papers we'd find something more. It seems notable per WP:ORG, and can hardly be described as a fluff or propaganda piece, seeing how prominently a criticism section is placed. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx))) 20:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC) (edit: Basically per user:4meter4's rationale as well.) BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with ((SUBST:re|BrxBrx))) 20:12, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guys in all honesty I would keep this one, It’s no different than capital one. What employee count makes qualify for inclusion? --Rrmmll22 (talk) 20:18, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not about employee count, it's about coverage and notability. Take a gander at HighKing's explanations, they do a great job at explaining the issues with the sourcing. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Merge to Saratoga Springs, New York#Economyadd in option to Merge WP:NCORP requires multiple sources (at least two) of deep or significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That means, nothing that relies on company information or announcements or interviews, etc. None of the references in the article meet the criteria and I tried to ping 4meter4 to ask about the references they've provided because none of the ones I've managed to access meet NCORP either. They are either standard business listings or short articles based on an "announcement" by the company (or in one case above, not even mentioned). All of the references I can find are within the company's echo chamber and I have been unable to find any "Independent Content" as per ORGIND or even anything that meets CORPDEPTH. Topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 10:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think I understand this comment. There are plenty of major sources of independent content in this page, including from the Times Union (Est. 1856), The Daily Gazette (Est. 1894), and the Saratogian (Est. 1855). There are also references to the National Register for Historic Places and pointers to associated Wikipedia pages. Hudsonmohawk (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Hudsonmohawk, I previously pointed to two relevent sections (WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND) but I didn't include all the sections, for example WP:ILLCON which states that sources that discuss a company's (alleged) illegal conduct cannot be used to establish an organization's notability. *Each* reference must meet *all* of the criteria. You pointed to a number of references.
You next mention "The Daily Gazette" which I assume refers to this reference. Discussing the same settlement. Fails WP:ILLCON for the same reasons as above.
You next mention the "Saratogian" and I assume you are referring to this article. First off, the Saratogian is a small local newspaper, with an estimated circulation < 1,000. Even leaving that aside, the article provides no in-depth information on the company and provides most of the information about the time capsule from the journalist having attented an event to unveil a 100 year old time capsule. This is not notable coverage, it is a local-interest piece. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
If you're struggling to understand how NCORP is applied you'd like me to provide the detailed reasoning for any other reference, put the link below. HighKing++ 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment It seems to me that when there’s a difference of opinion Wikipedia should always err on the side of “keep”. It costs nothing to retain an article. As long as there are some references, and it’s not just about a company somebody runs out of his basement (for example), there’s no upside to deleting an article. Peter Flass (talk) 21:41, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If there is no consensus AfD defaults to keep, so that's basically how it works. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I've also now looked at the references posted by 4meter4 and the all, without exception, fails the criteria for establishing notability according to NCORP. Most references are based entirely on PR and company announcements, or a commentary on a legal case. I had already pointed out that the first reference listed by 4meter4 by Knudson didn't even mention the topic company. The second reference "Regional Industrial Recruitment in Upstate New York" mentions the topic company in the context of a single sentence where it points out that a former town supervisor named David Meager is also the owner of "the Adirondack Trust Company, the largest financial firm in the county". That's it. Fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 20:48, 21 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Saratoga Springs, New York#Economy, for which this subject should be of at least passing interest, even though it is curiously n ow completely absent. BD2412T 18:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Merge to Saratoga County, New York#Economy - I improved the article as much as I could, and was almost a weak keep, but there's still not enough media coverage to demonstrate notability. The best source is [[2]], but it's just a leadership transition announcement and a mention of the bank's own financial reports for info on its assets. If you take away the minor trivia about the charity sponsorship item and the time capsule reopening, the historic headquarters (which should really instead go in a building article), the lending discrimination and the somewhat routine PPP dispute with the hotel owner, there's not really much left. I took the liberty to start a merge to Saratoga County, New York#Economy with the most salient details, so you can see what it looks like. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 23:19, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment: I'm also perfectly fine with a merge. It's a good way to keep the pertinent information accessable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Bank is over a hundred years old and manages over a billion dollars. The article links to The Post-Star (Glens Falls, New York) 28 Sep 1989, Thu Page 11 which covers them and states "Trust of Saratoga Springs was credited with the best equity-to-asset ratio in the state." That and other coverage found convinces me the bank is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. DreamFocus 07:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are two references to articles from The Post-Star. The one you're referring to is from 28th September 1989. The full quote and context is that "Money Magazine" listed the "Top 100 banks in the USA" based on an equity-to-asset ratio and based on a list compilied by Veribanc of 13,500 banks across the USA. So it's not an award of any kind and there's nothing to suggest that inclusion in this top 100 list suggests that the topic company is notable in any way. HighKing++ 13:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That article is long enough to count as significant coverage of it in a reliable source. It starts off with: Adirondack Trust in Saratoga Springs is the safest bank in New York, according to the October issue of Money Magazine. This proves it is a notable bank. DreamFocus 16:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, our NCORP guidelines don't have a "That article is long enough to count as significant"' exception, it looks to the content/quality rather than length. I don't even know why you've fixed on that particular reference since it isn't even the original source as it refers to an article in a different publication that, to date and AFAIK, nobody has been able to find. HighKing++ 20:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep Bank has received substantial coverage, and article is far from promotional. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 14:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep per Dream Focus. I don't see how the article is exactly promotional either. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 16:56, 30 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep I must admit that my first reaction was "delete." What, a private bank in a small town? How can that possibly be notable? And almost all of the references are local; I normally expect regional coverage if not national. But after taking a closer look at the article, noting that the bank is more than 100 years old, has 13 branches, has over a billion dollars in assets and deposits, and received at least a mention in Money magazine with followup reporting in regional papers, I am going to err on the side of Keep. With that said, I would not object to a merge as suggested above. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dream Focus and MelanieN: A billion dollars in combined assets and deposits is really not all that much for a bank. It sounds like a lot, but they may well be counting the value of every piece of property for which they have issued a mortgage. Million-dollar homes are fairly common, so a bank with a thousand home mortgages in that range can claim a billion dollars in assets just from that. BD2412T 02:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to quibble, but the article actually claims "almost $1.5 billion in assets and over $1.3 billion in deposits". So closer to $3 billion combined. According to them, of course. Anyhow that wasn't my only criterion. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:55, 1 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[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.