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.
Does not appear to meet
WP:GNG, I can't find any coverage other than some brief mentions in the context of a 2020 fraud scheme where the bank was impersonated. I tried searching in Chinese as well and couldn't find any significant coverage, although my ability to do so is somewhat limited and a fluent editor may have more luck. signed, Rosguilltalk00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I wasn't aware of that resource. I tried searching just now but unfortunately didn't find anything usable in the first several pages of search results in English. signed, Rosguilltalk00:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion, as finding sources appears to be complicated. That said, the lone "keep" argument as of this relisting is not going to carry weight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
78.26(
spin me /
revolutions)18:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)reply
I had reviewed the sources at the zhWiki article before creating this nomination, so that tag being added doesn't really change anything about my original assessment. signed, Rosguilltalk16:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Google Scholar had some promising-looking hits, but paywalled. I'm leaning keep because the name drops are usually including Tai Yau for making conclusions about HK's overall banking system. HK is a huge int'l banking hub, but when it's a mom-and-pop deal, I think Cantonese is necessary to get beyond a stub. I thought this
SCMP Article was of some interest.
Estheim (
talk)
02:57, 3 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The two keep !voters rationales are rather lacking, but some commenters imply there are promising sources. Perhaps a third relist will result in some more concrete thoughts.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Eddie891TalkWork18:20, 16 January 2021 (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.