Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BC Pension Corporation


 * 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. Any editorial issues fall outside the scope of this AfD, so while the article does indeed need to be expanded, that isn't necessarily a reason to delete it. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

BC Pension Corporation

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No references were found that confirm this article's claim of notability, which allows it to pass WP:CORP. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 15:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the public pension plan for one of the larger provinces in Canada. Not very sexy, but certainly notable. Hairhorn (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * References? 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 19:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  13:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Hairhorn. -- KenWalker | Talk 17:25, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Save for this passing mention in Canada.com, this company has not received coverage in reliable sources. This is the same with the other references listed in a Google News Archive search. Hairhorn's rationale for keeping would be valid if there were sources, but there are none, so this article should be deleted per Verifiability. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete.  Google News archives suggest this is not notable.  JBsupreme (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The idea that a major pension benefit corporation likes this lacks coverage is preposterous on its face. Such coverage may not be easy to find online, but it's going to be out there -- it's built into the economic system. This is an area where Google News is ot particularly helpful, because so much coverage is likely to be proprietary, and even the limited coverage found in a full Google News search is consistent with notability for this sort of enterprise. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep While there may not be much in the media there is no lack of information in legal and actuarial publications that verify the existence and significance of the entity. A google search of BC Pension produces hundreds of thousands of hits and browsing through them most relate to pensions administered by this organization.  The law that created it is a sufficient primary source to verify its notablity. -- KenWalker | Talk 15:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Woops, I see that this is my second Keep vote on this article.-- KenWalker | Talk 20:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep notwithstanding lack of news articles, this is a public benefit corporation engaged in possibly the most boring area of law, Pension law, and one so obscure there is no law stub on it yet. (I took such a course in law school, and passed). Bearian (talk) 17:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice. This entity is almost certainly notable, but a two sentence article with one reference is a joke. Let someone with a modicum of interest put together a few paragraphs, and it should be saved. This entry in Wikipedia is not a net positive experience for the reader; there's so little content, the reader will be annoyed for having their time wasted.-- SPhilbrick  T  18:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.