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.
POV fork article. The scandal is well covered in the main Wells Fargo article and this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers. ANDROS1337TALK22:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or perhaps Merge. There should not be two separate coverages of this; it belongs on the Wells Fargo page. The only problem there is there are so damned many things like it. Anmccaff (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep frankly flabbergasted by nomination given how much coverage the event has received. The coverage on the Wells Fargo article is grossly inadequate.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then let's move it there, no? This is at best a POV fork waiting to happen, and at worst one which has already happened. No dispute about the seriousness or importance, but unless this article grows dramatically, it all belongs on the main page. Anmccaff (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ir's a fairly new article, and by no means does "scandal" indicate a difference of POV. I've also not asserted any sort of owership over it...no reverts, no nothing. I can only again reassert my shock at this nomination and assert that "this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers" is at best a nonsensical support of merge/delete.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 00:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are answering accusations no one has made. Is the take on this exactly the same as in the main article? No? Then there is a POV fork. Is it the same? Then why do we have two articles?
No, you haven't reverted anyone; how could you, no one else has edited it. I think that should be setting off alarm bells.
I'm not sure "scandal" is the best word, because you can a scandal wit nothing behind it, but I didn't raise any question about that, nor did anyone else.
Keep Customers being grifted by their own bank is definitely not a "POV issue", and any time a rationale contains a "edit wars will ensue if we keep this" line (especially when there hasn't been any other editors yet) I pretty much discount the nom right away; nobody is going to deny this happened, even WelzFargoFanboyStagecoachDRVR1852. Give our contributors more credit for being neutral, please. Nate•(chatter)01:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm, no one is saying that Customers being grifted by their own bank is ... a "POV issue". What two of us are saying is that the coverage of this should not be a separate article from the main Wells Fargo one, until and unless it grows to a point of being unmanageable, or ages to the point that a smaller mention is justified in the WF article. Right now, it's big enough and new enough it should be front and center, and unified.
No one said "edit wars will ensue if we keep this", or any line like that; if you want to argue that, go and find someone making the argument.
The fact that there have been no other editors, and only a minimal number of readers so far is exactly the problem being raised. It's a cul-de-sac, not a part of the mainstream. Now, I could see the point that i hasn't had enough time to catch on, but...no, I can't actually. This was, and is, a damned big story. The fact that no one looking at it definitely says something. Anmccaff (talk) 01:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ANDROS explicitly wrote "this article will lead to a bunch of edit warring between affected customers and satisfied customers".--MainlyTwelve (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I seem to have been skimming only for your literal words. I agree with you that edit wars, in and of themselves, are no reason to delete something. I disagree that this needs -two- articles. This should all be in the main Wells Fargo article for now. Anmccaff (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a broad and continuing incident that is thoroughly covered in reliable and verifiable sources and meets the notability standard separate and aprt from the article for the bank. Alansohn (talk) 02:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a notable incident that meets WP:GNG. It is a well-written and well-referenced article that deals with the subject more fully than is suitable for the main Wells Fargo article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:48, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Obviously meets GNG per article's sourcing and a basic news search. To be clear, nothing about the existence of this article prevents the topic from being appropriately discussed in Wells Fargo, per SUMMARYSTYLE. James (talk/contribs) 03:00, 18 May 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.