Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North Valley Bancorp

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. (Non-administrator closure.) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Valley Bancorp

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

nonnotable financial company. in NASDAQ not NYSE. On of a group created by class, recreated after move to user space, despite advice that it was not likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to establish notability through WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Cindy(talk) 10:56, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Some possible sources not currently used in the WP article: zacks.com benzinga.com found via Marketwatch. I dont know if these change the outcome or not. I am not sure they are good sources. I figured it could not hurt to add them here though. Also isnt the Reuters profile a good source? Reuters (currently used in the article). If none of these sources are reliable enough I think the rest of the coverage is incidental and thus probably fails WP:ORG Beakermeep^(talk) 20:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - enough RS cites to be WP:GNG. Hoovers cites are RS per WP:LISTED. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:47, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with analysis by VMS Mosaic, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2014 (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.