Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Export Development Bank of Iran


 * 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 keep. The bank is state own economic development bank and has been covered widely by English and non English print media.(non-admin closure)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  06:55, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Export Development Bank of Iran

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:CORPDEPTH and makes no sense. It claims a governmentally-owned bank is a public company, among other things, including an international reach without indicating a single foreign office. Also, don't confuse this "EDBI" with https://www.edbi.com/, which is the Singaporean company that there are actual news hits on. MSJapan (talk) 01:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:19, 21 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep It is a central government bank, and there is a significant probability that because of the systemic regional bias, our editors might have not been able to trawl out regional language sources. From the Central Bank of Iran to scholarly journals, from the National Development Fund of Iran to regional news reports, to Ministry web sites (just search for the bank on Google with site:gov.ir appended at the end), there is considerable material available on the bank. We just need editors to use the regional sources and put it up. Deletion is not the solution. Lourdes  04:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * "Systemic bias" is not an excuse or synonym for "lack of usable sources."  How many users of English Wikipedia can read Farsi and Russian?  If they could, what are they doing here?  At some point the lengths one needs to go to in order to overcome "systemic bias" are ridiculous.  So, no, that's not really valid.  Basically, you've found a lot of random web addresses, and that's all. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello MSJapan. Please don't take it otherwise. Have you attempted searching even the English sources for EDBI? I apologize much in advance if this sounds otherwise, but I think if you had, even the English sources go against your contention. All the following have absolutely significant mentions of the Export Development Bank: US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI. My view is that you should not have an absolutely negative deletionist slant against institutions like EDBI which need editorial support to spruce up content. You need to perhaps step back and not ridicule editors attempting to find sources, but rather yourself attempt to search the same before nominating. Thanks. Lourdes  17:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can read Russian, and I take exception to the question of what I am doing here being asked on that basis. Don't you realise that many people can read more than one language? What are you doing here if you think that an encyclopedia should be limited to what has been written about in one language? That is anti-intellectual dumbing down that goes completely against the idea of what an encyclopedia should be. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It's a statutory body, so WP:CORP is not the right measure. That said, we do need good sourcing, else a decent redirect target - David Gerard (talk) 10:49, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not a statutory body - it's an investment bank that happens to be owned by the government. Statutory bodies are like the SEC - they make and enforce rules; they don't engage in transactions. MSJapan (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, as per the US government, and as per an absolutely large number of significant reliable sources ( US Treasury, Analyzing divergent perspective about strategic direction in the Export Development Bank of Iran, scholar research, US Department of State review of Export Development Bank of Iran, Iran Business News report on Export Development Bank of Iran, IRNA news on EDBI, GT News on EDBI, The Business Year interview of EDBI CEO, Scholarly article on analyzing customer satisfaction in EDBI, Scholarly article on English speaking amongst EDBI staff, Iran Chamber News on EDBI), it is a state owned body that has been known to engage in transactions. My apologies for repeating the sources, but I feel given the innumerable number of reliable sources available, the article needs to be improved, and not deleted here. Lourdes  17:18, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * How is someone using data taken directly from the bank to write a paper "independent coverage" of the bank, and how does it make the organization notable because somebody used its statistical data? How is interviewing the CEO "independent coverage" when he's talking about the bank he runs?  How is publishing a press release "independent coverage" when all it does is delineate a transaction and we generally exclude those from consideration?  In short, these sources don't meet WP:RS. MSJapan (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * If you don't wish to accept scholarly research reports that have analyzed the bank's operations, despite our WP:RS guideline mentioning "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources", then that discussion belongs to the talk page of the said article and not in an Afd. If you believe that the US Government's multiple advisories lampooning and castigating the Export Development Bank of Iran is not independent of EDBI, I would suggest you take this issue also up on the talk page of the article. I'm not clear what you're looking for. When you nominated this article, you were quoting WP:CORPDEPTH, without mentioning that EDBI is a Central Government owned bank; you also were not in the know of any of the sources mentioning EDBI. Post that, you refused to consider systemic bias, claiming the same as "ridiculous". Post that, you said that I had searched out "random web addresses". Post that, you have dismissed scholarly sources and US government's advisories as being not independent of EDBI.


 * And of course, you have chosen to not comment on news reports like those in Teheran Times/Menafn (which notes that EDBI is a "policy bank established by an Act of Parliament in 1991" and "continues to perform an important policy role") and others like Financial Tribune which also I have documented above. Why would you wish to delete this Iranian government policy bank article, with such strong delete assertions? I strongly encourage you to first perform a proper search for sources, before nominating this article again. Lourdes  08:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I have added all sources to the article and now have spruced the same up. Lourdes  09:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Not sure what the issue is. It's a state own economic development entity and it's been covered in the English press and by the US government a great deal.  The nom's focus on this agency's article being "without indicating a single foreign office" is irrelevant to notability.  --Oakshade (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   16:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to meet GNG to me. Like Oakshade I'm not sure what all the carry-on is. In the UK non-departmental public bodies have extraordinarily varied constitutions so I wouldn't be at all surprised if this applies in Iran as well. Thincat (talk) 19:14, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously, per various comments above. I too cannot understand the nominator's position here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, just like we would keep any such prominent establishment from another significant country. There is indeed lots of room to expand coverage. — JFG talk 21:52, 29 September 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.