Talk:CRDB Bank

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CRDB Bank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113141511/http://www.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/biz/29915-crdb-bank-announces-superb-profit to http://www.dailynews.co.tz/index.php/biz/29915-crdb-bank-announces-superb-profit

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Completely inadequate sourcing, questionable content

This article (until my edits, today), was apparently almost totally fabricated from bank promotional literature, and other statements from the bank -- often with uncorroborated/undocumented subjective praise of the bank -- in direct violation of WP:NPOV. Hardly any independent, substantial, secondary sources were provided for any of the remarks, in violation of WP:RS.

Accordingly, I've deleted much of the subjective promotional language (generally without the deleting explicit claims of objective fact), and flagged many of the statements as needing source citations (or, in some cases, just better sources cited).

However, if these various undocumented claims are not properly documented, soon, it will be entirely appropriate for them to be deleted. In fact, so much of this article is unsourced, or poorly sourced, or blatantly subjective, that it may be appropriate to delete the article altogether.

I urge other editors to research this topic and provide solid, substantial, independent, secondary sources (e.g.: major news media sources, academic sources, etc.), or at least substantial independent primary sources (government agencies, financial organizations, etc.).

~ Penlite (talk) 20:58, 27 August 2020 (UTC)