From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 delete. The only policy-based arguments fell firmly on the 'delete' side of the debate. Daniel ( talk) 04:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Tai Yau Bank Limited

Tai Yau Bank Limited (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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, Rosguill talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Is this relevant? 219.77.116.215 ( talk) 17:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 00:11, 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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 TT me 19:25, 7 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, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC) reply
@ VocalIndia: Actually may be meat sock . See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/14.0.180.170. And sorry i am too busy to try to read the old news article in Chinese that republished digitally in MMIS. Matthew hk ( talk) 12:21, 23 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.