Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bond markets in East Asia and South East Asia


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  13:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Bond markets in East Asia and South East Asia

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Although the Asian Development Bank in the external links is a reliable source I am not sure that is enough. Article has been tagged as unsourced for over a decade - I did a Google search and the subject does not seem to be notable in itself. I am not an expert but nowadays don’t they talk about individual countries like ‘panda bonds’ and so on? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary).
 * --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  00:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a manual. The article is entirely unsourced, and reads like original research, and it seems like a very promotional tone. I cannot find any information about this topic that isn't routine news coverage or how-to manuals. Darcyisvery cute (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * • Delete It seems almost like a guide/press release to me, if it could be significantly rewritten it could maybe qualify (but from a source look-up I am not sure there is enough), but for now it seems like a lost cause. Geardona (talk) 03:40, 28 December 2023 (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.