Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of banks in Denmark


 * 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 Snow keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

List of banks in Denmark

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article adds practically no information over Category:Banks_of_Denmark and entries in the list are or will be outdated and no one is maintaining the list. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator; this adds nothing that the category does not cover, and a category is the correct place for this information. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:04, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions.  Musa  Talk  23:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NOTDUP as a complement to the category, a guideline to which both the nominator and delete !voter's comments are clearly contrary. And I don't understand how an entry in this list could ever be "outdated". postdlf (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * keep while the article could use better formatting and removing the redlinks would help, the article does not appear to be a candidate for deletion in my view, it's certainly in article for cleanup otherwise. Outback the koala (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, especially the red links! This is a textbook example of a list serving a purpose which a category can't. Red links indicate missing articles (assuming these are all notable banks). Pburka (talk) 02:28, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – Per WP:NOTDUP and Postdlf and Pburka above. Some of the red links are for notable companies, which articles can be created for. North America1000 06:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CLN.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. As others have stated, a list like this complements the category, and the red links will hopefully encourage editors to create article in an area of the encyclopedia that appears to be lacking at present. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep Yes better than a category if it had red links which at present does not actually have.   It is the barest minimum of encyclopedic content.  Mke it more encyclopedic.  How about some basic information about the banks, eg, date established, ranking in size in Denmark. (This would make (some of) the linked to stubs redundant though . . !) Aoziwe (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I've updated the list with the most recent information from the source and also copied the size grouping they use. If some information about that can be added, the article will at least have some value. Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 19:15, 13 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. In its current incarnation, this is a violation of WP:YELLOWPAGES. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  15:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is in much better shape now. —♦♦ AMBER  (ЯʘCK)  22:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate you changing your !vote, please do keep in mind in future AFDs that we judge articles based on their potential, not their current incarnation. Put another way, we do not delete content because of fixable problems but instead leave them open to be fixed. postdlf (talk) 23:04, 13 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.