Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank of Ideas

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. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bank of Ideas

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

Propose to delete on notability grounds. It was a short-term squatted space some three and a half years ago. Most of the references on the article were the Bank of Ideas website which was a primary source and no longer exists. Horsemask (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Occupy London. Even considering the versions before the Bank of Ideas article was radically reduced in size, I'm not convinced a separate article is required. If necessary their plenty of room of expand the Occupy London article with more information about the Bank of Ideas and indeed that article already covers it in various places on the page. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, §FreeRangeFrog^croak 22:25, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though the article needs work I'm seeing sufficient sources specifically about the Bank of Ideas (rather than a mention in a larger piece about Occupy) to satisfy WP:GNG. Some of those (and some which talk about this substantially in connection to Occupy) see Vice, Guardian, Timeout, Adbusters, Dazed, New Statesman, Independent, Londonist... These were on the first couple pages of ghits. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rhododendrites. There are clearly a variety of sources on the subject. BenLinus 1214^talk 02:00, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Upon a source review, passes WP:GNG, thus qualifying for an article. Also, notability is not temporary. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:45, 10 May 2015 (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.