Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australian Central 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. WP:SNOW. Clearly there will be no consensus to delete this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Central Credit Union[edit]

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

contested prod, no claim of notability, no references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion of the credit union's size is a clear claim of notability, and this search shows a great many news articles about the credit union. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per Eastmain. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ample reliable sources discussing the subject. Lack of information in the article is article is grounds for improvement, not deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto Peripitus. Gobonobo ^T ^C 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Somehow the element of deletion policy stating "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist" slipped past the nom. This is a plainly notable and verifiable institution, as a 5-second Google News search turned up. Ravenswing 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above.--Milowent (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why in the world do people reflexively delete perfectly acceptable articles? Bachcell (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - this nomination is an example of where WP:BEFORE might have assisted the nominator. Crafty (talk) 00:43, 18 November 2009 (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.