Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/China Bank Savings (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Chinabank. (Non-admin closure)--114.81.255.37 (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

China Bank Savings

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article that fails WP:NCORP. Last discussion ended in no consensus, with the closer blaming lack of participation for it. Mr. Guye (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Chinabank, which already has a paragraph on CBS. It would improve that paragraph to list the services in the lead of this article. In general I think it would improve the Chinabank article to have more information about CBS. For example the Plantersbank acquisition was notable, and the description is incomplete without noting that Plantersbank branches will be absorbed by CBS. They really belong together. However, I think 2 or 3 paragraphs on CBS is enough. We don't need details like service names and branch locations. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:15, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - I suppose. I'm not convinced the company is notable but if there is an appropriate target, marging a small amount of information there doesn't hurt anyone. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:48, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chinabank--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:19, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comment: Agree that merging to Chinabank is a good idea. --Mr. Guye (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.