Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social Investment Wholesale Bank


 * 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. The keep side is well argued. WP:CRYSTAL is only there as a warning against speculative articles on future events; however, the sources are sufficient to fulfill WP:GNG, which makes it notable. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 03:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Social Investment Wholesale Bank

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete, non-notable bank./ Speedy declined. No references doesn't appear to pass WP:CORP. If significant coverage can be found I am not objectionable to another experienced editor to close AFD with my blessing Switch to keep Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. I aded some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Stifle (talk) 17:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The bank does not exists yet. When/if it is officially created, then so can an article.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 17:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * COmment. The articles about it are in reliable sources, and WP:CRYSTAL discourages unsourced predictions, not those sourced to reliable sources. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 19:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete impossible to ascertain notability until such time as it actually exists. It's true that Wikipedia rules don't necessarily prohibit articles on future events and so on, but in practice things which are merely in the proposal/planning stages tend not to be notable aside from truly extraordinary circumstances (example: 2012 Summer Olympics). Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  19:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep It has been the subject of substantial British media coverage: . The article needs better referencing and expansion. Warrah (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: 28 hits over 13 years, with a lot of repeats/press releases? I wouldn't consider that substantial.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 15:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Only two articles in that search are from the late 1990s, and the search includes coverage in the Guardian, Evening Standard and the trade journal Third Sector. Warrah (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2010 (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.