Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Asian Banker


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The Asian Banker

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

Borderline, but the fake interwiki links are always a bad sign. Probably fails WP:CORP. Biruitorul Talk 18:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:


 * Delete per nom. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite. Based on the following web searches:
 * the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * the subjects appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, however I think The Asian Banker Journal should probably be merged into The Asian Banker. PhilKnight (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per PhilKnight. There do seem to be sources to establish notability for all three articles, or alternatively, they could be conflated into one article. Sources do need to be added though. &mdash; LinguistAtLarge • Talk  17:18, 27 March 2009 (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.