Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Bank Officers Association

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Commonwealth Bank Officers Association[edit]

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

Poorly referenced article about an organization which does not appear to be notable. About 3 dozen hits on google news, but of the listing or trivial mention variety. Did not see a single reference with significant coverage. Fewer results on Books, but of the same variety. Was deprodded without a valid rationale. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:29, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Yes the article is poor on all accounts, however this is not grounds for deletion. Google shows very limited hits but then google is very blind to anything older than about 10 years ago. See for example trove. I have not had a chance to sift through this material, but even on a first very quick glance I suggest this article romps it in on NEXISTs. There would appear to be potential here for a very extensive and in-depth article with references going back ~80 years or more. Aoziwe (talk) 12:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment a better trove search is with exclamation marks "Commonwealth+Bank+Officers+Association" which shows far less results. A lot of it is routine like court listings. I will decide later how I vote on this. LibStar (talk) 07:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

yes and no, not now notable, but could be kept, could be a paragraph on the FSU page Dave Rave (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decent-sized national trade union that existed for 63 years. Complaining about the lack of Google News results for an organisation that ceased to exist in 1991 is a little bit strange. There is a whole book about its history, plenty of references in other books, and plenty of references in period newspapers. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:28, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:NCORP. Needs a complete rewrite and needs sources to verify it but it makes a credible claim to significance. DrStrauss talk 11:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for improvement. Sources exist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per my nomination.CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 18:38, 20 February 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.