Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank Transfer Day


 * 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. Consensus is that third party coverage is sufficient for notability.  Sandstein  18:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Bank Transfer Day

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is an announcement and a call for action. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, so there should be no place for this, despite sources. Night of the Big Wind talk  05:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep I don't think that the description of this page as "an announcement and a call to action" is an accurate description, there is thus no rationale for deletion given so far. It is adequately sourced and written in a neutral tone. I am slightly dubious as to whether it will have lasting impact, it could be argued that the page should be deleted because of the on-off nature (thus the weak keep). On the other hand, I have already seen mentions of this in many sources, so think it is notable enough. Francis Bond (talk) 07:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Most of the references given are to items that, while related, aren't the "Day" itself. And I put "day" in quotes because: "Bank Transfer Day...by November 5, 2011."...not a "day" at all... - The Bushranger One ping only 07:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Criteria in wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball: "appropriate to keep discussion of events and prospect of success ... if discussion is properly reinforced." That the event is political is irrelevant wrt deletion as political events are kept.  This article will have been a victim of Overzealous Deletion.  It may need some further editing, but certainly doesn't warrant deletion.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.103.70.63 (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * And this sounds like an overzealous desire to keep the article, in contradiction with the rules... Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - Two reliable sources that address the topic in detail, and likely more available and to occur in the near future.
 * "Occupy Wall Street Backs a Nationwide Boycott Against Banks"
 * "Bank Transfer Day: A Protest With Your Money"
 * — Northamerica1000 (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't think the notability is there, just yet. But considering the sources available, I'd say this is a borderline case. Could we not cover this in a more concise manner as an aspect or offshoot of the OWS phenomenon? UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 13:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep There are reliable sources, participation worldwide, and widespread general knowledge. Is not a soapbox as per Wikipedia is not a soapbox but merely a statement of factual events. Is targeted for Overzealous Deletion Sngourd (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep — As per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, in order to violate the "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion" policy, the article must be one of the four: (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind; (2) Opinion piece; (3) Scandal mongering; and (4) Advertising. This article is neither of the four. Written from a neutral point of view; verifiable and independent third-party sources were used to back up virtually every sentence of the article. Disclosure: I am the main editor. --Fayerman (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete This will most likely cease to be notable on November 6th if not enough people respond. Since notability is permanent, it would therefore follow that it is not yet notable. This is a clear case of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Mangoe (talk) 17:56, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Per the numerous reliable sources, both available and in the article at this time, the article appears to pass WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NTEMP, once notability has been established for a topic, it doesn't have to be continuously reported upon. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep. Already 1,600 stories in gnews. Dualus (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:BIGNUMBER. How many of those stories are "cut and paste" press releases? - The Bushranger One ping only 05:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Silly crystal ball gazing.  Whatever.  I feel as if Wikipedia is being used as a political platform.  That's too bad.  ShakerSJC (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - How is a well-referenced, informative article (and topic) "silly"? Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Will not be WP:Crystal too much longer, its date is fast approaching, can it be moved into its creators userspace, until then. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:50, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTSOAPBOX WP:NOTNEWSPAPER all apply.  Appears to be little more than using WP to promote the event.  Arzel (talk) 04:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - In addition to the many reliable sources presently in the article, I just added three more. Topic obviously surpasses WP:GNG:
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:14, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The event is already notable in the media. What happens in the future is irrelevant, because the threat itself is notable. USchick (talk) 16:08, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't, not unless it is carried out and has a notable effect. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * According to policy, the subject itself has to be notable, not the effect it may have in the future. wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball According to Fox News it's already viral USchick (talk) 17:03, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Fox News is not the most reliable source. And secondly: saying that you are going to do something, is something different then doing it. I want to see prove first that the bank are bothered by the mass closing of accounts... Night of the Big Wind  talk  20:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — Wikipedia does not require reliable source to be "the most reliable". As to the proof, read this: Bank Transfer Day: Technologists Say Thousands Already Switching --Fayerman (talk) 04:54, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Ever heard of an understatement? And still no proof that the banks are bothered. That the Credit Unions are happy, does not make the call to walk away a success... Night of the Big Wind  talk  14:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Reply — Please do not argue with me. My goal is to help you find answers to your questions. A "thank you" would be nice. If you have more questions, I will try addressing them. Thanks. --Fayerman (talk) 14:37, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why not? Do I ask difficult questions? Then I repeat the questions in clear English:
 * Do you have proof that the bank are bothered by this action?
 * Do you have proof that the action will be a success (= having the bank to cut the fees etc.)?
 * Why do you regard this article not to be in conflict with WP:SOAPBOX?
 * Are there any clear criteria to call the action a success?
 * Is there a reliable number available of people who have closed their accounts? (Not the number of likes of a facebook-page)
 * Night of the Big Wind talk  15:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * This article is about a proposal. The proposal itself is significant and notable as a potential threat. See: Threat display. Similar articles exist about potential threats such as Nuclear holocaust and Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth which may or may not ever happen. The threat does not have to be carried out to be relevant and significant. USchick (talk) 20:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per Fayerman. At this point I believe notability is established, and the article clearly does not violate WP:SOAPBOX. --Tkynerd (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why does het not violate wp:soapbox? At present it is still a call for action! And if I look at the (?) Facebookpage is only see 21,856 supporters (or better, people who clicked on "like" without any obligation) Night of the Big Wind  talk  21:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment — This is off-topic, but I think you're looking at the wrong link. --Fayerman (talk) 01:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not off-topic, mr. author. Facts is what we need. Not a crystal ball. Even with the correct page (I had indeed a wrong one found), I don't come further then "59,587 attending". So, 60.000 people on 312 million Americans. I impressed (for you: an understatement). Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - This nomination for article deletion isn't congruent with any of the criterion for deletion listed at WP:DEL. The nomination to erase this article from Wikipedia is based upon personal opinion, rather than Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Northamerica1000 (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read the last line of the text you point at: Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I ask your attention to the link "not suitable". Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I know next to nothing about Wikipedia policy, however after reading this page I believe that the article is appropriate for our encyclopeida. Gandydancer (talk) 15:08, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read What Wikipedia is not for the reason of my nomination. Night of the Big Wind  talk  16:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please be more specific? What exactly in this article falls under the "not"? USchick (talk) 20:35, 23 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Northamerica1000 has found reliable sources. WP:GNG has been met.   D r e a m Focus  02:09, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - GNG is satisfied, very comfortably.Rangoon11 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.