Talk:Deutsche Bank/Archives/2019

Bulge Bracket, offsite canvassing, and sock puppetry

This is regarding this edit.

There are unfortunately multiple problems here. First, this was added by an account which has been blocked for sock puppetry per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DonSpencer1. This, alone, is a reason to revert.

Second, this appears to be a source of contention or some sort of off-site meme. This doesn't really matter that much, but it does suggest that not everyone is acting in good faith.

Third, the sources which support DBs 'membership' in the Bulge Bracket are fairly weak. This suggest this was added as a "fact" and then back-filled with obscure sources, some of which are unreliable, some of which are outdated, and some of which are passing mentions. None of them appear to me to treat this as a defining characteristic which would belong in the lede. Going only by sources, we can only say that DB "was considered" part of the Bulge Bracket, but it's not particularly clear why this factoid matter to general readers. One source which was added to support the label is This, from Investopedia. (My understanding is that this outlet is broadly seen as a reliable one, per WP:RSN etc.). The source emphasizes that since 2008, the term Bulge Bracket is "somewhat outmoded". This suggests to me that it's not all that helpful to introduce the term in this context. Others fail WP:RS for various reasons which I will explain, if necessary.

So, if there is some well-sourced reason to say that DB is not part of the Bulge Bracket, we should use that source accordingly. Likewise, if there is a good reason to say they are still part of the Bulge Bracket, we should also follow sources. Pending further discussion, and per WP:BE, I have removed this information. If sources do not treat it as vitally important, neither should the article. Grayfell (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)