Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tai Yau Bank Limited

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

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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]

Comment Have you tried Hong Kong Public Libraries newspaper archive ? https://mmis.hkpl.gov.hk. May need an afternoon for me to read the news article from the search result. Matthew hk (talk) 00:29, 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,Rosguill ^talk 00:34, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. One of the few locally incorporated licensed banks. 219.77.116.215 (talk) 17:17, 24 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]

The {{expand language}} tag has been added. 219.77.116.215 (talk) 11:45, 1 January 2021 (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,Rosguill ^talk 16:11, 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.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable history. 14.0.180.53 (talk) 07:17, 12 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]

Keep and expand per remarks above of various fellow editors. 218.102.122.155 (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Expand the article, per above. 219.76.18.74 (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment above votes are come from IPs, who has made few or no other edits outside this topic. So likely WP:SOCK. VocalIndia (talk) 09:24, 21 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.