Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Currency chest


 * 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. Strong argument for deletion from JamesBWatson. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Currency chest

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No reliable sources found. Web search does indicate that it may be a regional expression in Indian banking, but the content of the article goes well outside of that expression and into pure original research. The principal editor self-proclaims that this is their creation. The content was originally a Quora Q/A thread, which was duplicated here. That thread has since been blanked. Tgeairn (talk) 21:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep . The proposer says that no reliable sources have been found, but appears not to have heard of books.  I know they are rapidly going out of fashion, but they are still accepted as reliable sources here.  I declined the speedy delete on the grounds that there were multiple sources available, and thought that might prompt him to look, but hey ho...The subject is discussed in depth in,
 * Chand, The Financial System of India
 * Gupta, Contemporary Accounting,
 * Singh & Dutta, Commercial Bank Management
 * Khanna, Advanced Study in Money and Banking

Gbooks has literally hundreds more results for the term. I don't know anything about the subject, and am not in a position to judge whether this article is verifiable in the sources, but I need a better rationale than the one we have before I would support a delete. SpinningSpark 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing to Delete per JamesBWatson. SpinningSpark 21:27, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I may not have been clear in the proposal here. There is the subject discussed in those sources, and then there's the subject of this article.  Although there is some overlap, what is here now is not the mainstream use of the term (in India or elsewhere).  This is the editor's own work, which they claim on the talk page to hold rights to.  I agree with JamesBWatson, it needs a rewrite... but we cannot have independent research that the author is claiming rights to sitting here while we get around to writing an article about the actual subject.  As a side note, it was Melcous that proposed the speedy. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but substantially rewrite. The present article has several faults, including lack of sourcing, being written more like an essay than a Wikipedia article, lack of explanation of the context (for example, it doesn't even mention that this is a specifically Indian concept), and not being written in good English. However, contrary to what Tgeairn says, there is enough coverage easily findable by web searches to make it clear that this subject is notable enough for a Wikipedia article, and rewriting it to overcome the problems is more constructive than deletion. I am willing to put some work into improving the article, as soon as I have time to do so properly, which I hope will be within the next few days. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:45, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep- I completely agreed with JamesBWatson, it needs a rewrite than delete. Amitbanerji26 (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete the present article, and create a new one from scratch. I am very grateful to Tgeairn for the clarification in the post above that begins "I may not have been clear in the proposal here". Reading that has prompted me to examine both the article and the sources that I found more thoroughly than I had done when I posted my message above, and I see that Tgeairn is perfectly right. According to the article, the function of a currency chest is to serve as a store place for a bank to put cash deposited by customers to prevent local branches from becoming overloaded by such deposits. However, both the sources cited by Spinningspark and the sources I found make it clear that in fact a currency chest is a mechanism for the Reserve Bank of India to distribute cash to individual banks, which is a completely different thing. For example, www.gktoday.in/answer/what-is-a-currency-chest says "The Reserve Bank of India is responsible for issuing coins and notes to the public on demand and for maintaining the quality of the notes issued. ... In order to satisfactorily discharge this duty without recourse, the RBI maintains currency chests of its own at treasuries and branches of the banks at all important centres. The currency notes printed at the press flow to the RBI offices and from the RBI office to these currency chests before they reach the public", www.educationobserver.com/forum/showthread.php?tid=4601 says "To facilitate the distribution of banknotes and rupee coins, the Reserve Bank has authorised select branches of scheduled banks to establish Currency Chests. These are actually storehouses where banknotes and rupee coins are stocked on behalf of the Reserve Bank", and www.business-standard.com/article/finance/exchange-small-notes-at-currency-chest-branches-114012300367_1.html says "Currency chests are select branches of scheduled banks, which are authorised by the RBI to facilitate distribution of notes and coins. In these branches, notes and coins are stocked on behalf of the RBI. These currency chests are expected to distribute notes and coins to other bank branches in their area of operation." Nowhere have I been able to find anything remotely supporting the account given in the article, which says various things such as "Customers deposit cash in the bank branches and these branches cannot store the cash when it accumulates and exceeds the cash holding limit of the branch. A bank has so many branches and there is a need to collect these excess cash for security, monetary, regulatory and logistic purpose." In fact, the more I checked the article against sources, the more I found that its content is completely at odds with every source I found, so it really is original "research", in the very broad sense of the word "research" which is current in Wikipedia usage. Furthermore, the article is written to promote a point of view, rather than being written from a neutral point of view: for example, it tells us that Currency Chest "facilitates a good and healthy economy to our country", and there are other expressions of opinion. Thus, while I still think that an article should be written on this topic, I have to change my view on the existing article. Since it bears no connection to reality, there is no basis for keeping it in the page history, and we should delete it and start a new article afresh.


 * In view of what I have written above, I wonder whether either or both of Spinningspark and Amitbanerji26 may like to reconsider their views on this. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 20:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2016 (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.