Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City's Cash

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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

City's Cash

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

Fails WP:GNG and seems to focus more on Occupy London than the account, one of tree accounts used by the City of London. I found a grand total of *two* RS's mentiong the fund, which seems underwhelming. Kleuske (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well the issue of how information became available is to do with Occupy London, but the fact that there is this account of £2.3bn, and is one of just three funds available to the City of London makes it very notable. Leutha (talk) 18:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why? I bet most financial centres have funds available the public knows little to nothing about. Kleuske (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Easily passes WP:GNG as there are many more than two sources out there. Andrew D. (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability seems clear; plenty of scope for expansion. --Mervyn (talk) 09:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear notability. Paul W (talk) 13:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with City of London Corporation, essentially this is a content fork of that article, referring to one account of the 'City'. No reason or benefit to being independent. Pincrete (talk) 20:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A clearly notable topic. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's been said above. Close per SNOW. South Nashua (talk) 19:17, 9 November 2017 (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.