Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elcom 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. (Non admin closure). Qst 16:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Elcom Credit Union

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This organization no longer exists. It was merged. Link is deprecated. Pearrari (talk) 23:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. It needs better sourcing, but it was a large credit union in its day. Going out of business doesn't mean that you aren't notable ... would you delete GTE or Western Electric?Kww (talk) 23:35, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand and respect your perspective. To answer your question, I don't happen to feel we should keep company obituaries, even if the company was notable when it did exist. A valid reason to keep such an article would be ongoing relevance, such as a legacy of financial disaster a la Enron, a legacy of remarkable innovation, or some other remarkable ongoing economic impact such as the companies spawned by GTE, I continue to feel removal is appropriate, but we should consider evidence if you (or anyone else) can provide verifiable evidence to the contrary, updating the article so it is clear that it is still relevant. Pearrari (talk) 02:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Once notable, always notable. History is important.  Wikidemo (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Definitely. WP:N (Companies) doesn't say anything about this, but I would be shocked (and frankly, concerned) if we didn't have articles on companies that were obviously notable when they existed. You could consider merging these into the company they combine with, but then you have the issue of companies that just ceased to exist - better to all have their own separate articles. Tanthalas39 (talk) 04:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Gavin Collins (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as article has no primary sources to verify its content, nor reliable secondary sources to demonstrate notability outside the community which it serves. Notability to come perhaps. --Gavin Collins (talk) 08:53, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Definitely. It's not so much an obituary as part of a lineage.  Someone looking up the history of the new merged credit union would be interested in the historical records of the credit unions that comprised it.  Why wouldn't one go to an encyclopedia to look up historical corporations?  The GTE argument is valid here.  That said, it would be nice if the article mentioned somewhere in the top half that this was a credit union in Australia and whether the "$" are Australian or some other country's. Bruxism (talk) 09:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems like it fits our criteria for notability, citations, except when with BLPs, can be dealt with in editing.  MBisanz  Talk 14:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Notability is not lost once it's acquired; "organization no longer exists" is not a reason to delete. Keep, although it needs some improvements — for instance, one shouldn't have to read halfway through the entire article just to learn what country the thing is in. Bearcat (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2008 (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.