Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bank fee


 * 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   Bold redirect Nothing to see here; not sure if it even needs to be deleted despite being made by a sock of a banned user. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Bank fee

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete per WP:G5. page has been created on 3 April 2008 by Mr. Ambassador, a sockpuppet of Sarsaparilla, although Sarsaparilla is banned since 25 March 2008. page has no substantial edits by other users. Cordyceps2009 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Delete and Redirect to Fee - Bank fees do exist. However, since it was created by a banned user, the page should be deleted and redirected to the noted section.  miranda   06:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no need for banned user paranoia, no need for administrator tools, and really no need for this AFD discussion in the first place. The obvious redirect target is bank charge, which could have been just done, had the nominating account not been a single-purpose account for playing some silly game of nominating for deletion everything ever created, supported, or even touched by Sarsaparilla and Abd.  Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep over 2000 gnews hits, very notable article on a controversial topic UltraMagnusspeak 13:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What is controversial about a bank fee? Are you even on the right AfD?  miranda   23:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * you obviously don't live in the UK, here the have been major group lawsuits over what are seen as extortionate bank fees --UltraMagnusspeak 10:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My apologies.  miranda   03:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per WP:CSD. I believe the nominator is correct in the rationale. However, the article should be deleted for reasons beyond its creator- not least of which that the material is better covered elsewhere. Possibly redirect to bank charge or fee. HJMitchell    You rang?   22:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CSD may not apply here. It's limited to "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others. ".  This article has had eight edits since it was last touched by the creator in April of this year.  Reasonable minds could differ on whether any of these edits were "substantive." I favor a light touch on Speedy Deletes, so I'd err on not applying G5 to this one.  TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Redirect to bank charge; or alternatively fee, as suggested by User:HJ Mitchell. TJRC (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, then allow anybody who wants to to create the redirect. No mercy for the creations of banned users. If the creations of banned users are allowed, this is a disincentive to other users with behavior problems to behave themselves. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:11, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to bank charge. Extensive discussion in US media in recent past sharpens need for article expansion. The suggested section of the fee article is highly opinionated and unsourced (although I pretty much agree with the opinions involved). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Bank charge: I must say this whole deletion debate really disturbs me, as I think it was made for the wrong reasons. However the subject is already covered under another article so I can't very well vote Keep in good concious. Deathawk (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirecting to Bank charge seems reasonable.  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  19:40, 21 October 2009 (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.