< January 7	Deletion review archives: 2009 January	January 9 >

8 January 2009

Phnom Penh Commercial Bank – Speedied article replaced by a non-speediable article. Nothing else to discuss here. – Stifle (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Phnom Penh Commercial Bank (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (restore \| cache \| AfD)`)` Bank is notable, user who speedily deleted it should have simply tagged it; very easy to establish notability viz WP:ORG. The bank was founded in September 2008; it is a new bank; its website is Phnom Penh Commercial Bank. It is a joint venture of Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank of Korea and SBI Group, of Japan. I was under the impression that a bank in a developing country, backed by important extant banks, wouldn't have much of a notability issue. Here is the News page at the bank's site, describing the opening ceremony and reception party, which was attended by the governor of the National Bank of Cambodia, which is a central bank, equivalent to the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England. Sounds like a notable event. The bank is new, but there are only 23 banks in Cambodia to begin with....article was created yesterday and deleted today, if article is restored I vow to continue developing the article under a notability tag, there are ample references available to add to the External links section. Comment Well, I deleted this article based on A7: An article about ... an organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article contained no such indication. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment Sure. But there is also WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This bank has yet to be listed on Alacrastore or Hoover's, but all signs point to notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think it is better for you to create new article and add required claim of notability, than to continue this argument. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well, it's not better to have to create a new article, but I think that is what I will do. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nominator's comment 1. I was surprised that a bank article less than 24 hours old would be speedily deleted; and 2. There was no article there to discuss, it had been deleted. Sorry. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's not what I asked. I asked why you did not contact the administrator who deleted the page to discuss the matter prior to opening a deletion review. That step is indicated twice on WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] What a waste of time. I'm surprised to see a bank deleted as an A7 but the CSD was clear. You are not barred from recreating the article and adding the sources that will establish notability and therefore exempt your article from speedy deletion. It would almost certainly have taken less time for you to do that then you must have spent reading the instructions on how to list this discussion. Go ahead and recreate, don't waste your time or energy - just add some seondary reliable sources to the new article so we don't have to come back here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Restore a bank is sufficiently likely to notable enough to prevent speedy no matter how little is actually said in the article. Saying its a bank is enough. I wouldn't worry about the above comments; 1. the statement there bout asking the admin was advice, not policy. Attempts to make it policy will not be successful, for all nonobstructive ways of appealing admin decisions are beneficial. 2. And I think it is a good idea for people to bring all clearly wrong CSDs here, so the admins who make them will realize their mistakes. DGG (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] DGG, why are you telling the author to ignore my comment when I was encouraging them to just recreate the article?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you should gather a consensus to amend the current DRV policy then. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] I do not think that banks are inherently notable (there is nothing about banks in WP:ORG). Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nominator's comment I will rewrite the article tomorrow. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Restore. If this was 2005, and this was an American bank, the author would be congratulated for improving Wikiepdia's coverage of financial institutions. Unfortunately, it's 2009 and notable Cambodian subjects are regularly speedy deleted with no oversight or second opinion by another editor. It's a misuse of the CSD policy to apply it to delete articles like this. CSD should prevent unencyclopedic rubbish and vandalism - not core articles for country coverage. The major financial institutions in any country are suitable material for Wikipedia, this is no exception. This article is simply helping to build the core article set about Cambodian institutions - which are woefully incomplete. If the article is restored, I will add information, sources and photograph the bank - once I get done adding references to the 185 Districts of Cambodia, many with notability tags <sigh> and in similar danger of deletion. Paxse (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] Nominator's comment Well, this short article has been redone, and after 30 minutes of sorting through English language search results, there are links to its page at Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank, which is one of its two parent companies, there is the listing at the National Bank of Cambodia, and there is the bank itself. And here are two detailed job offers listed at the Phnom Penh Post (marketing specialist and at CamboCareers (bank director). I'm not sure if these two links are important to the article, but as the bank is only a few months old, it is somewhat difficult to find documentation at an online search engine. If there are notability issues for the article as it is, please leave a notability tag and I will look into it. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] This discussion is moot now, because the article was recreated. Still I want to note that two sources that you found are not independent secondary sources. They are just self advertisements. Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Phnom Penh Commercial Bank – Speedied article replaced by a non-speediable article. Nothing else to discuss here. – Stifle (talk) 13:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Bank is notable, user who speedily deleted it should have simply tagged it; very easy to establish notability viz WP:ORG. The bank was founded in September 2008; it is a new bank; its website is Phnom Penh Commercial Bank. It is a joint venture of Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank of Korea and SBI Group, of Japan. I was under the impression that a bank in a developing country, backed by important extant banks, wouldn't have much of a notability issue. Here is the News page at the bank's site, describing the opening ceremony and reception party, which was attended by the governor of the National Bank of Cambodia, which is a central bank, equivalent to the Federal Reserve in the US, the European Central Bank or the Bank of England. Sounds like a notable event. The bank is new, but there are only 23 banks in Cambodia to begin with....article was created yesterday and deleted today, if article is restored I vow to continue developing the article under a notability tag, there are ample references available to add to the External links section.

Comment Well, I deleted this article based on A7: An article about ... an organization ... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. The article contained no such indication. Ruslik (talk) 18:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sure. But there is also WP:ORG: An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. This bank has yet to be listed on Alacrastore or Hoover's, but all signs point to notability. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is better for you to create new article and add required claim of notability, than to continue this argument. Ruslik (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not better to have to create a new article, but I think that is what I will do. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 21:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment 1. I was surprised that a bank article less than 24 hours old would be speedily deleted; and 2. There was no article there to discuss, it had been deleted. Sorry. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not what I asked. I asked why you did not contact the administrator who deleted the page to discuss the matter prior to opening a deletion review. That step is indicated twice on WP:DRV. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What a waste of time. I'm surprised to see a bank deleted as an A7 but the CSD was clear. You are not barred from recreating the article and adding the sources that will establish notability and therefore exempt your article from speedy deletion. It would almost certainly have taken less time for you to do that then you must have spent reading the instructions on how to list this discussion. Go ahead and recreate, don't waste your time or energy - just add some seondary reliable sources to the new article so we don't have to come back here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Restore a bank is sufficiently likely to notable enough to prevent speedy no matter how little is actually said in the article. Saying its a bank is enough. I wouldn't worry about the above comments; 1. the statement there bout asking the admin was advice, not policy. Attempts to make it policy will not be successful, for all nonobstructive ways of appealing admin decisions are beneficial. 2. And I think it is a good idea for people to bring all clearly wrong CSDs here, so the admins who make them will realize their mistakes. DGG (talk) 01:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- DGG, why are you telling the author to ignore my comment when I was encouraging them to just recreate the article?? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:04, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you should gather a consensus to amend the current DRV policy then. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not think that banks are inherently notable (there is nothing about banks in WP:ORG). Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment I will rewrite the article tomorrow. --Mr Accountable (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Restore. If this was 2005, and this was an American bank, the author would be congratulated for improving Wikiepdia's coverage of financial institutions. Unfortunately, it's 2009 and notable Cambodian subjects are regularly speedy deleted with no oversight or second opinion by another editor. It's a misuse of the CSD policy to apply it to delete articles like this. CSD should prevent unencyclopedic rubbish and vandalism - not core articles for country coverage. The major financial institutions in any country are suitable material for Wikipedia, this is no exception. This article is simply helping to build the core article set about Cambodian institutions - which are woefully incomplete. If the article is restored, I will add information, sources and photograph the bank - once I get done adding references to the 185 Districts of Cambodia, many with notability tags <sigh> and in similar danger of deletion. Paxse (talk) 04:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment Well, this short article has been redone, and after 30 minutes of sorting through English language search results, there are links to its page at Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank, which is one of its two parent companies, there is the listing at the National Bank of Cambodia, and there is the bank itself. And here are two detailed job offers listed at the Phnom Penh Post (marketing specialist and at CamboCareers (bank director). I'm not sure if these two links are important to the article, but as the bank is only a few months old, it is somewhat difficult to find documentation at an online search engine. If there are notability issues for the article as it is, please leave a notability tag and I will look into it. Thanks. --Mr Accountable (talk) 04:44, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion is moot now, because the article was recreated. Still I want to note that two sources that you found are not independent secondary sources. They are just self advertisements. Ruslik (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.