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. Sandstein 06:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong[edit]

China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:OR and fails WP:GNG as an article and fails as a list due to non-existence of Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria. The current list is only loosely based on 八行五保 (eight bank and five insurer), a jargon term (a buzzword) by radio financial program host that grouped a few financial stocks together and nothing in depth per WP:GNG. It also omitted People's Insurance Company of China (listed in HK since 2012) and China Everbright Bank (listed in 2013) and way many banks that were not owned by the central government, such as Bank of Qingdao, Bank of Tianjin, Harbin Bank, Shengjing Bank, as well as China Cinda Asset Management . Did the radio host just retired the term "foo1 bank and foo2 insurer" (X行Y保), or the list itself is a trivial list that selectively grouping companies with their place of origin and business sector? There may be some equity classification structure by Morningstar or MSCI, but seem not that sufficient to craft a WP:GNG article, unless people think just listing a few WP:GNG passing articles as a list would merit to keep Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 11:29, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Groups of stocks can be notable: this reminds me of FAANG, which is a better sourced article on a similar topic. However, I think this falls down to two issues. The first is naming; the name China-based financial stocks in Hong Kong seems to describe a large category of stocks. To discuss this grouping of 13 particular stocks, we should name the article Eight banks five insurers or a similarly literal translation of the Chinese term. But the second and bigger issue is sourcing. With zero sources at present, it is impossible to argue that WP:GNG is met. I would argue to delete, without prejudice to recreation if relevant sources are brought forth. BenKuykendall (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2020 (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.