Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawartha 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 delete. Sandstein 09:04, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Kawartha Credit Union

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Small credit unions aren't generally notable, and no reliable sources here prove that somehow this one is. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not that small. At this page, the company states it has $1.4 billion (Canadian) in assets. I was able to add a link to a debate in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where one elected politician described the history of Kawartha and its predecessor Cangeco (Peterborough) Credit Union. Where money is involved, references generally exist. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to the reference in the Ontario Legislature, five different newspapers and magazines have written about it, do the media consider it to be notable. I think we should too. There is no benefit to readers of deleting this. Ground Zero | t 12:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: an unremarkable financial institution of local significance only, and rather minor at that. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikipedia is not an extension of a corporate website. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 15:45, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete most of the refs are self-sourced or routine announcements, not up to WP:NCORP standards. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 04:07, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. \\\Septrillion:- ~~‭~~10^Eleventeen 20:41, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough independent sources available that describe the work of the bank. The Banner talk 23:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:42, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ^Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 22:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Hhkohh (talk) 02:53, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Regardless of type, companies are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:CORP just because of the size of their asset base, or because they've gotten mentioned in legislature speeches as an example of a broader topic and not the actual subject under debate in their own right. Too many of the sources here are primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the ones that are reliable sources are virtually all local coverage in the credit union's local service area, not aiding in getting it over WP:CORPDEPTH as the subject of more than just local coverage. The only thing that speaks to notability here at all is the "25 best small companies to work for" listicle, but one blurb in a listicle is not substantive enough to get a company over CORPDEPTH all by itself as the only evidence of more than local reliable source coverage. So no, none of this is good enough at all. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 11 July 2018 (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.