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.
Strong Keep (snowball keep if there's support). This is an ongoing event, not a future event, so WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. And the notability seems unquestionable. -Elmer Clark (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: What? The collapse has happened. To quote the article, Silicon Valley Bank was closed after a bank run, causing the largest bank failure since the 2008 financial crisis and the second-largest in U.S. history.Heavy Water (talk) 04:57, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't gone yet, regulators have assumed control of the organization. So that means it is crystal to say that it is collapsing. Until it is completely withdrawn from the stock market, it still exists. Dariocister (talk) 05:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The charter closed. The FDIC controls a successor institution, the DINB of Santa Clara. This is clear from the FDIC press release: Silicon Valley Bank... was closed today... the FDIC created the Deposit Insurance National Bank of Santa Clara (DINB). The whole predecessor institution was transferred to the DINB. DINBs are new banks, established under 12 USC s 1821(m) ("New depository institutions"). The predecessor institution is on the FDIC's failed bank list. Ifly6 (talk) 05:17, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is unverifiable speculation, rumors, or presumptions? It's not a prediction. It happened today. SWinxy (talk) 04:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:FUTURE in this instance seems to refer to scheduled or expected future events. This event is not a future event. It already happened. The FDIC already has a receivership set up; the predecessor institution already closed; the successor DINB is a new institution created for that purpose. All of this is made clear in the press releases issued by the FDIC and by the California state bank regulator. It is further made clear in the context of FDIC resolutions operations (see eg Crisis and Reponse ch 6). Ifly6 (talk) 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The bank's already failed as per sources and because it was taken over by the FDIC. If you want quibble about the wording of collapse and want to rename the article to "Failiure of Silicon Valley Bank" you can do that but the event's already happened and is significant so there's no need for deletion. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep multiple sources cover this. Absolutely a notable event even if the bank somehow ends up back on its feet through some kind of intervention. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, definitely not future - would close this as a WP:NAC but I'm not sure if that is allowed for IPs... (long time lurker) 130.64.64.67 (talk) 05:27, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep A current event with ample coverage in reliable sources. As Ifly6 explained, the bank failed. This AfD right now does a massive disservice to our readers. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:29, 11 March 2023 (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.