Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EBA Clearing

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 no consensus. Sandstein 09:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EBA Clearing

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

Non notable per WP:NCORP, self-cited info no good, tagged more than three years & no substantial improvement. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I agree the article is not great, but the organisation is clearly a major infrastructure provider for Euro payments and used by major banks and is getting more important. I feel it meets notability, the article just needs to be improved. Sargdub (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just saying it is "clearly major" won't sway the closing administrator. You need to provide reliable third party sources saying so ☆ Bri (talk) 21:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just click on the word "books" or "news" or "scholar" in the search links spoon-fed by the nomination process and you will find loads of reliable third party sources saying so. Can we please use a bit of common sense when deciding what subjects should be covered in this encyclopedia? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:GOOGLEHITS is what we call a classic "argument to avoid" in AfDs. There is an onus on folks who think this is notable to show why, specifically, backed by specific reliable sources. ☆ Bri (talk) 22:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - And my argument wasn't based on the number of hits, but on their content. Just spend a few seconds looking at the search results that I pointed to (not the useless web search) and you will see very many independent reliable searches with significant coverage of the subject. That is something that you should have done before even considering nominating this for deletion, so don't tell other people to do your work for you. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 23:15, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is the operating company covering several notable payment systems and presumably had to be formed as a legal entity distinct from Euro Banking Association but is there a need for articles on each layer? Would it be better returning to the pre-mid-2014 situation when it was simply covered in the article on the parent organisation? AllyD (talk) 08:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 14:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. EBA Clearing is one of these obscure but vital pieces of the financial plumbing of Europe. It's separate and distinct from the EBA, which is largely a discussion and banking-regulatory group. I added a number of citations to Euromoney, IT Finanzmagazin, and others to improve the sourcing. Fiachra10003 (talk) 11:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2017 (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.