Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International payment (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 Delete with no prejudice against recreation. As the article currenctly stands, it has not evolved since the last AfD. As the general process is already covered in Wire transfer, this article adds little more then some jargon. If this article is to evolve into an article that provides any braoder context besides textbook reading, it should be written from scratch. Ping me if you want to salvage some content. — Edokter • Talk • 15:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] International payment

International payment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

I know this was at AfD in December 2006 minutes after creation when it was a dictionary definition. Valid arguments were made that it was more than a dictionary and could be encyclopedic, but I find no evidence that the concept is of standalone notability. It's too general to be covered in one article due to all the varieties from one country to another and probably from one bank to another within a particular country. I cannot see how this can ever meet WP:V without applying only to one bank/country's regs and or possibly cover every variation on international payments, so I'm bringing it here for another look. Travellingcari (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. The concept itself is certainly notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. Although the article is currently badly written, a plethora of reliable sources may be used to improve its text.[1] Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment and how would you suggest using those so that it's not a dictionary definion or turning into a HowTo guide to international payments? I think if stubbed the article could be valid and verifiable, but then it's simply a dictionary definion. That's what I see as the problem with this article. It's a term or a process. Just my .02 TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: I do not understand the nominator's argument. The international payment system is pretty standardized and the basic mechanisms do not differ between banks or between countries. Moreover, there are more general concepts covered in a single article. No one has raised the issue of "generality" as a reason to delete God or Physics. Andrzej Kmicic (talk) 05:47, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Disagree this is heavily US/Europe focused, having dealt with the Asian banking world I can tell you there are differences. International payments is an overarching system that includes SWIFT and others. How do you write an encyclopedia article that's more than a dicdef without crossing into a howto? TRAVELLINGCARI^{My story}_{Tell me yours} 12:42, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per indiscriminate collection of information. What salvageable info is here already exists at various other banking-related articles and this simply put cannot aspire to be an encyclopedic topic and should be deleted. Eusebeus (talk) 23:50, 28 February 2008 (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.