Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternatives Federal Credit Union

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. postdlf (talk) 15:54, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives Federal Credit Union

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

The article is almost without content and the notability is disputed MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The current article is so uninformative that it could have been speedily deleted under WP:A7. However, a quick look at the standard GBooks search produces quite a few sources that seem to regard it as a prime example of a community development credit union. If someone can use these sources to write an actual article, I think that there is some likelihood of notability being established - otherwise, unfortunately, deleting this article won't really be a loss to Wikipedia. PWilkinson (talk) 10:42, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't blame the nom, it could have almost passed for A7 as it was, but added a bit of content, including sources from two different books (with urls) and one award, and would note that the mission and success of the organization would warrant inclusion. It wasn't obvious before, but after some searching, I'm convinced it is now. It still needs more content, I just added enough to get it to pass WP:CORP. Dennis 2¢ 15:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a HighBeam search and came up with 78 hits and I also added a source from HighBeam. I am One of Many (talk) 06:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree there was not much there but after the recent edits its enough to stand on its own. Resaltador (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per my earlier comment, with thanks to User:Dennis Brown as the "someone" I asked for. PWilkinson (talk) 11:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is why we need more participation at AFD. The nom wasn't unreasonable, it just took a few eyes to look deeper and a little bit of time. My favorite outcome at AFD is when we save one that otherwise would have sat in a condition like this one was a week ago. At least the reader has some quality sources now. Dennis 2¢ 13:03, 19 October 2014 (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.