Talk:First Financial Bank (Ohio)

Proposed merge of MainSource Bank into First Financial Bank (Ohio)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To not merge, but rather to improve both, given the importance of both institutions separately. Klbrain (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

---

I had performed this merger boldly, but a question came up on my Talk, and I've reverted to have a formal discussion. It does not appear that MainSource meets WP:ORG and this is run of the mill transactional news and not substantive coverage. I think discussing it within First Financial Bank (Ohio) where much of the history already is, makes sense. Thoughts? Star Mississippi 01:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi: Thank you Star Mississippi for starting this discussion. From what I have seen in the many bank articles on Wikipedia in general, many of those articles contain mostly transactional news (i.e., U.S. Bancorp). As an industry, banking is boring. Unlike the restaurant industry, an editor cannot write about food poisoning incidents such as that happened to Chipotle Mexican Grill or of retail companies such as Kmart in which their CEOs gut their companies for quick profit at the expense of employees, suppliers, and customers.

Let us be constructive (and possibly start an edit-a-thon). What would be needed to improve this article enough to satisfy your interpretation of WP:ORG? Do we need to increase discussion on management? Products and services offered? Bank robberies? Lawsuits? Controversies?

Most of the branches are located in homogeneous small town (i.e, white conservative) America in which almost nothing happens.

Do we need to add more information on the acquired banks before the holding company was formed in 1983?

I found a copy of the 2016 Annual Report] which could be used a possible source of company propaganda.

Although the prose definitely needs improvement, it is my opinion that WP:ORG is satisfied by the quality of citations in the article.

-- 96.64.134.61 (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for missing this and thanks for your edit (and the laughs), IP96. I think we definitely need to cover deposit slip induced paper cuts! I think we just agree to disagree re: ORG as far as the depth of coverage, but hope others will weigh in so we can see where this lands. Star Mississippi 22:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we necessarily have to decide notability here, since merging two articles into a single article can be useful even if both topics would be separately notable. In this case, the additional context on the new parent bank helps readers interested in MainSource Bank appreciate what happened to its assets after the merger, and the history of MainSource Bank helps readers interested in First Financial understand the importance of the acquisition for First Financial. Seems like a win-win situation to me, so merge. Felix QW (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't Merge - If both organizations are deemed to be notable, merging would be a bad idea especially if there exists a lot of unused material that could be used to expand BOTH articles. What would happen if we merge all of the historical component articles for extremely large banks, such as Bank of America, Chase Bank, Citibank, PNC Financial Services, U.S. Bancorp, or, Wells Fargo? Those articles would be extremely large and unwieldly. What would be better if both articles has a short sections about the other organization with a {{main}} template added to point where to find more information about that section. 23.25.58.41 (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.