Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Banking in Pakistan


 * 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  WP:SNOW keep. (non-admin closure) &mdash; neuro(talk) 17:31, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Banking in Pakistan

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Don't know WP policy on articles such as this, seems empty, frivolous, and seems like the original creator meant to create a "List of Banks in Pakistan" article (which there already is the seemingly incomplete template box for, so I don't know the need for an article like that), so nominating for deletion. &eta;oian  &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  05:35, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Tolerate as a stub from which a sourced article can be written. WillOakland (talk) 07:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - this requires expansion, not deletion. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:56, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Richard Cavell. Banking+Pakistan has nearly 9 million Ghits, 36,000 Gnews hits, 30,000 Google Scholar hits and over 3,000 Google Books hits. Clearly a notable topic that can be properly sourced. McWomble (talk) 09:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep: Article title is extremely note-worthy. -- GP Pande  09:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. A principal part of a country's financial system is worth of note. Especially so because Islamic banking is quite different from traditional Western practice and its implemenations in different countries are quite different, and need further introduction to readers. NVO (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per above Ijanderson (talk) 13:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep as a stub in the group of Banking in [country] articles. Must be expanded and thoroughly reworked: content worthless in its present form. --Zlerman (talk) 14:05, 16 December 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.