Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No to bike parking tax

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. Well done to Uncle G for a stellar job on the article. Mkativerata (talk) 07:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Westminster motorcycle parking charge (née No to bike parking tax)

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

Or would db-a7 apply here? Marcus Qwertyus 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why this is being considered for deletion, It's just popped up and like many other pages will require time to grow a little, cite the sources and balance out to a neutral viewpoint. - Nitro1592 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitro1592 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send Back to the Sandbox Best practice is to work on a theoretical article in the Sandbox, not in the mainspace, if the article completely lacks citations. -Markeer 22:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Move to "Bike Parking Tax controversy". There seems to be a lot of news about the bike parking tax in Westminster. Might have skidded through A7 CSD too. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely the simple and straightforward Westminster motorcycle parking charge would be a better title, less likely to become a magnet for misplaced soapboxing? Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very impressive rewrite, Uncle G! --Odie5533 (talk) 21:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Might be a case for an article about this topic, but this article is such as WP:SOAPBOX you might as well start all over again. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding Nitro1592's comment, I have started an SPI case that can be viewed here Acather96 (talk) 11:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Send back to the sandbox: I personally agree with Markeer, if it's put back there then it can be worked on out of the way, and then released later on. "Acather96" I appreciate your concern regarding this and have replied accordingly, I hope it provides insight. Nitro1592 (talk) 12:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now rewritten with sources by Uncle G. The protests were a highly visible (and audible) recurrent event, within sight of Buckingham Palace and the Houses of Parliament, as the sources amply demonstrate. All it needs now is some pictures. Guy (Help!) 20:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'll declare an interest here, because my daughter travels to her workplace in the City of Westminster by motorbike, so is hit by this charge, but putting personal knowledge aside I can see that this has had ample coverage in independent reliable sources. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Revisions and sources with significant coverage have shown this to pass our standards.--Oakshade (talk) 00:38, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as revised/renamed. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:51, 8 August 2010 (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.