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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aspen Capital

[edit]

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

Sources are short of notability, one about the failure of the company's loans, the other is mundane press release type by a non-RS cite, plus a primary link. Just another bank that made a lot of bad loans. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 23:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - a quick search turned up additional sources. Certainly not a great article, but we judge the topic's notability, not whether or not the article demonstrates it, and it is a required action to make a good faith effort to search prior to nomination for deletion. I don't think that occurred. Aboutmovies (talk) 06:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
From The Author - As a contributor just beginning his work on Wikipedia, I created this article for a couple of reasons. My initial interest was in a man named Gordon Sondland. Since I was able to help get that article altered I have been working on building out other Oregon related articles that branch off of that article which were not yet covered. I plan on continuing to contribute in this manner, moving in one degree of relevance to associated topics that are yet to have an article. The fact that Aspen Capital made some bad loans doesn't qualify them for deletion in my estimation. The bottom line is that this is a business which is referenced in other articles and did not have its own page. They are a substantial player in the Portland economy. I would be open to instruction on how to make the article more legitimate...--Maggletooth (talk) 16:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient sourcing. Actually, I think it probably that nost established banks will make the cut for notability. DGG ( talk ) 20:02, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has enough sources, and as an active bank in the portland community i believe its notable.CouchSurfer222 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2012 (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.