Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jetha Lila

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 of the debate was keep. Metamagician3000 11:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jetha Lila

Unable to verify notability of subject matter. A query made using the Google search engine produces 64 relevant results, some of which merely duplicated/mirrored the Wikipedia entry. Folajimi 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral for now. The creator of that article produced what looks like some useful finance-related edits for WP. Moreover s/he is still sporadically active (last edit 21-Apr-06), so perhaps you might make contact. --BillC 18:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Acad Ronin: I am the creator of the article/stub. I posted a longer reply to Folajimi on their talk page. My key point is that I can see no value to throwing away factual, documented information. This lead to the article cited could benefit someone researching Indians in East Africa, the impact of the Zanzibar Revolution on the ethnic make-up of Zanzibar, or its economy, and a variety of other topics. The source article is a chapter in an obscure book and I only found it after years of keeping an eye out for any info on Jetha Lila for some work I am doing on the history of foreign banks in East Africa. What makes Wikipedia valuable is not the articles on well-known topics. That information is readily available in many places. It is the information that specialists and hobbyists post on arcana that is Wikipedia's unique contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)

• Weak delete, notability and verifiability are questionable. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Acad Ronin: If you are concerned about verifiability, read the source article. The author based it on field and archival research in Zanzibar. The reason I was looking for more info re Jetha Lila was because the name of the bank and the fact that it was a private bank of Indian origin had shown up in various directories of banks, and in a scholarly article of banking in East Asia. As for notability, I reiterate my point that almost by definition there is a surfeit of information on notable topics. One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that for instance I can look up almost any US Navy vessel by name or number, and find a capsule history, contributed by someone who is a ship geek, just as I am a bank geek. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acad Ronin (talk • contribs)
  • Point of Information: For the sake of argument, let's say that the source qualifies. How can I obtain a copy of the source article for the purpose of verification? (Rule of thumb is to have two independent sources, but that is a different matter...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Folajimi (talk • contribs)
    • You could visit a library where it is available. As all necessary bibliographical information is in the reference, I don't understand exactly what your problem is here. u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • The only problem I have is with your tone. In case you haven't noticed, the author said that the information came from an obscure source. Hence the PoI. Folajimi 13:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Sorry for the tone, but my point is that now, after the author has located this article discussing the topic and used it to write this article, it will not be as difficult for you, me or anyone else to find it again, because we already have the reference. u p p l a n d 13:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
      • Wikipedia has rules regarding the verifiability of content which is submitted. As it stands, authenticating the cited reference is an issue, due to the inaccessibility of the current source. In other words, saying "Trust me, this reference is legit" is suspect, at best. Folajimi 13:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
        • How is it inaccessible? It is a chapter or article in an academic publication. u p p l a n d 14:17, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I just reformatted the comments above to make it clearer who wrote what. (Acad Ronin, please sign after your comments; it will be easier to read as it is what most people will be used to here.) u p p l a n d 09:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The article needs work, but I don't see any real argument for deletion here. This is an Indian trading house and bank in East Africa that was founded in the 1880s and closed in the 1960s. There is no reason to expect a large number of Google hits. u p p l a n d 13:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per Uppland. The article doesn't seem particularly controversial, so if AR says they found a copy of the book, that's good enough. If it were controversial, we could ask for more sources. BTW, the Google hits that there are point to notability. For example, [this one] says they controlled Zanzibar's financial network. That's pretty notable. AnonEMouse 15:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. The inclusion of such articles are vital to counter systemic bias. The original author has provided a reference. It would seem to me that assuming good faith would require that those bringing up verifiability should provide an account of their failed attempts to verify the citation. For a book, the first step would be to see if the cited work actually exists. This can be done by checking the online catalog at a depository library such as the Library of Congress or the British Library. Another step would be to check to see if the work is in WorldCat. (Anyone in the United States who is affiliated with any College or University, or has a library card at a public library has either direct or indirect (via the librarian) access to WorldCat.) I have done this, and the work cited does exist. If I truly doubted the work actually covers the material, I could order it via inter-library loan, although that might take a few weeks. Dsmdgold 15:38, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I have added a second source to the article. This source is what sent me off on the hunt for further information as it only mentions the bank's existence and its being an Indian private bank in Zanzibar. As for the main reference, the Tominaga article, I just went back to WorldCat and it is available from 39+ libraries, including more than thirty in the US. Anyone wanting to find the article could get it via Interlibrary Loan. Acad Ronin 16:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs wikification Crum375 17:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, Acad Ronin, part of the problem here is that the article doesn't say very much about its subject. It ought really to say something like:

"Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880 by the Bombay-born merchant Jetha Liladhar, later taking responsibility for control of Zanzibar's finances. The bank's initial operations were confined to banking commission activities, however in 1910 it began money-changing and in 1920 represented the interests in Zanzibar of the Westminster Bank. In 1933 it was issued a trading license by the Zanzibar government to operate as a bank, and became responsible for controlling Zanzibar's financial interests from the 1930's until the 1964 revolution in Zanzibar and the overthrow of its Sultan. During that time, (etc, etc....)

(References added at end)"

I'm not sure of all the facts on this subject, so the above will probably need to be rewritten somewhat. Given the sources you have, it should be possible to produce something like the above which I am sure everyone here would support. Much of the battle over the notability of subjects in Wikipedia article is won or lost in the first sentence of the article; that's why it's best to start with a sentence that clearly defines the subject, hence: Jetha Lila was a private bank founded in Zanzibar in 1880. --BillC 18:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Copyedit. I bit the bullet and did it, incorporating the original text and facts, the text above, and a contribution from Lambiam. If anyone feels this should not have been done, or should have been done differently, then feel free to revert me or edit the article. (I also removed the Wikify notice, and assigned categories to the article). --BillC 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• keep please this is verifiable and notable too Yuckfoo 19:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• strong keep, I think its quite absurd to have to debate this. Making this sort of information accessible is precisely what Wikipedia is for. Further, I'd like to make the point that the original referrer's objection is uninformed, and I will run through the correct procedure because I've seen this error more than once recently. The article came to AfD because he couldnt 'verify notability'. I can't verify the notability of a lot of things, but as long as I read the content of the article, I know the (unverified) subject of the article is notable. I then observe the references, and know that the content of the article is verifiable. I dont combine the two steps. Hornplease 07:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • You are strongly advised to act in a civilised manner; casting aspersions will get you nowhere. Folajimi 09:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I think you mean civil, not civilised. Nevertheless, if I have somehow offended you, I apologise. However, please note that my choice of words was not meant to offend, but to exactly describe the situation. Please familiarise yourself with - or, perhaps, read again - WP:V and WP:N; you will note that my points are borne out by the consensus on those policy pages. Once again, there are specific 'cutoffs' for notability for educational institutions and academics and bands and so on; but for something of this sort, where a strong argument for notability - namely, control over the finances of a sovereign state - are clearly set out in the article, WP:N is satisfied and the problem reduces simply to one of verifiability. Given the provision of references that satisfy the reliable source test, WP:V is met as well. The problem arises if you try to apply the two criteria simultaneously. That is not something you have to do. Hornplease
  • "I think you mean civil, not civilised..."

Spare me your lesson on semantics/syntax; I meant what I said, and you are free to interpret that as you see fit. Starting out with adjectives like "absurd" and "uninformed" is anything but congenial.

FWIW, I had thought of ignoring your remarks (as I did with Dsmdgold's conflagratory rhetoric); but I will make one more attempt at clarifying my case before a mêlée erupts...

My best efforts (which includes google queries, and searching the catalog of my region's central library) failed to yield any reliable sources/references which would have helped establish the notability of the subject matter. The perception of conflation regarding notability with verifiability is inaccurate; the issue I had with the nominated entry was the apparent lack of sources which could be verified, not the article's content.

At any rate, I hope this AfD gets closed by an admin soon, since the nomination's raison d'être has been OBE'd — the current article looks radically different when compared to the nominated entry. Folajimi 13:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no mêlée. However, I think confusing civil with civilised is itself a violation of WP:CIV... Hornplease 14:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep per u p p l a n d Humansdorpie 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletions. -- Humansdorpie 14:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: A quick look at JSTOR (online academic journal archive) today shows a couple of additional mentions of the bank in academic journals such as The International and Comparative Law Quarterly and Journal of African Law ; there really is no verifiability issue here. Humansdorpie 08:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, per nominator (above) and because we should take systemic bias serious. — mark ✎ 17:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep If we remove this as not notable, I tremble at the hundred in not thousand that could get deleted--Aldux 13:45, 13 May 2006 (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.