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 delete‎. Because reasonable arguments have been made as to why their former location isn't a viable target, and there is absolutely no consensus on what might be one. A redirect can be created editorially if needed, but no aone is arguing the content needs preservation. Star Mississippi 00:39, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Office of the World Bank, London (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Contested PROD of an individual office of the World Bank. No other office has its own page. Clearly fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Organizations, and United Kingdom. AusLondonder (talk) 13:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect which is what I said should happen when I deprodded this. I'm just not certain what the best target is. Thryduulf (talk) 13:44, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  If the proposer of a merge or redirect cannot identify a target, that's a rather significant problem. You deprodded the article but failed to suggest a credible alternative to deletion. In that case, the article should be deleted. AusLondonder (talk) 13:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect - Altenmann >talk 03:35, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, merge what and to where? AusLondonder (talk) 08:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete article merely confirms it exists. Fails GNG and not worth redirecting/merging. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the building that it's located in - originally assumed it was about the building, but it's about an office in the building which clearly fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is wrong, the World Bank no long has an office at Millbank Tower. AusLondonder (talk) 06:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then we should delete it. SportingFlyer T·C 17:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards deletion since a redirect target has not been identified. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Millbank Tower#Occupants as WP:ATD - plausible search term to existing article (unless I'm missing something bleeding obvious)? Ingratis (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would we redirect to their former office location? That makes absolutely no sense. ATD doesn't mean we can never delete an article and should instead create incorrect and pointless redirects just so we don't have to ever delete anything. AusLondonder (talk) 12:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree, there is no point redirecting to a former office location. LibStar (talk) 01:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because: (a) it's not a newly-created redirect - see WP:R#KEEP #4: the article has been there for 11 years; (b) WP:R#KEEP #5 - just because you don't find it useful doesn't mean it isn't to someone; (c) in general WP:REDIRECT - the balance is to keep redirects unless they meet specific criteria for deletion, and this one doesn't; (d) why on earth would anyone come to Wikipedia to find the current London address of the World Bank? they are more likely to want reminding of its previous far higher profile location: Millbank Tower is notable, whereas 1 Tudor Street (as yet) is not; and (e) in any case the WB London current address is included in both articles.
I'll underline that I'm not advocating keeping the article itself. Ingratis (talk) 10:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a ridiculous and blatantly misleading redirect. How does it meet WP:RPURPOSE? I'm actually quite confused by your reasoning. In the unlikely event someone is looking for information on the London office of the World Bank how does redirecting them to Millbank Tower assist? Frankly a redirect in these circumstances would meet multiple criteria at WP:R#DELETE. AusLondonder (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, because apart from anything else the Millbank Tower article includes the current address of the World Bank in London (which is nowhere else on Wikipedia, I think), if there is anyone who is really too dim to use the World Bank's own website instead. We've reached the usual conclusion of a Wikipedia discussion - "I say it is" vs "I say it isn't" - and there'll be no further progress, so I'm leaving it there. Ingratis (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect The key reason - there are no other branches on Wikipedia. And the references are poor enough. Delete without redirecting is also a good idea. 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  obviously fails GNG

  N 扱. し. 侍. (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2024 (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.