Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bilateral netting

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 keep as additional sourcing was found. (non-admin closure) Kj cheetham (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bilateral netting

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

does not seem to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:49, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, stating that the subject does not seem to be notable implies that the nominator has not bothered to check. This topic is notable, per the sources now added to the article. SailingInABathTub ~~🛁~~ 16:34, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Stub article that needs much improvement but the sourcing added makes the subject's notability clearer. Fiachra10003 (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes good to keep now thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2023 (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.