Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saudipak Commercial Bank

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. JamesTeterenko 16:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saudipak Commercial Bank

As a matter of VfD closing policy, I'm referring back to VfD all deletion discussions that get three votes or fewer including that of the nominator. This discussion will run for another five days, until August 15. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 11:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no such bank in Saudi Arabia. You can check List of companies in Saudi Arabia, or http://www.tadawul.com.sa for list of all companies (though the Wikipedia list is not complete yet). The article was nonsense at its beginning and then somehow transformed into inaccurate information. That's about it. -- Eagle^amn 04:06, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, it seems there is or was a bank with this name in Pakistan [1], so the information currently in the article is not worth keeping, since it seems to be wrong. —PrologFan {Talk} 19:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete: The bank does exist ([2]) in Pakistan, but Saudi Pak is two words, not one, so it'd have to move anyway. Even if it were moved, it's a pretty stubby stub, especially given its inaccuracy.... if someone is inspired to write a Saudi Pak Commercial Bank article, let 'em knock themselves out, but this article isn't enough to save itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JDoorjam (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 August 2005
• Delete. Three unanimous delete votes is safe to delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete and also agree with Sjakkalle. Many people already feel that VfD is getting increasingly long and hard to use, no need to bog it down with articles that have unanimus consensus but a small number of votes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I think it's the right thing to do. I would have discounted two of the votes in any case because their accounts are just short of one of the suffrage limits I set--one month since first edit. That would leave only the nominator. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 16:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree that it is the right thing to do in the case of very few votes indeed, particularly if they are divergent. But unanimity is unanimity whichever way we read it. -Splash 19:12, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete just to insure we reach your limits, although they strike me as a little high. --Icelight 18:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Splash 19:12, 10 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.