Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connect Financial

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 notability addressed Gnangarra 06:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connect Financial

Procedural nomination after declining of relevant CSD. A non-notable organisation which does not meet WP:CORP. The article subject is a small credit union operating only in a single state, and does not (and never has) contained any reliable sources or references. Another corpcruft example. Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Thewinchester ^(talk) 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Delete A non-notable credit union where most of the content describes standard credit union activity. No independent reliable sources are provided. -- Mattinbgn/ ^talk 00:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No reliable sources in the article and the search results that Google throws up for "Connect Financial" nearly all appear not to refer to this company. I also couldn't find any news sources about it. Fails notability. Will (aka Wimt) 01:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Change to neutral based on Nick's sources. Clearly there are reliable sources that evidence that this company does exist, but merely having been mentioned in news articles does not necessarily mean that a company is notable. The sources provided really only show that the company has undergone a merger and paid for some advertising. Now there is a claim that the company is one of Tasmania's biggest credit unions. However, the same article also states that the combined number of jobs in the two companies is 380, which is a surprisingly small number for two large credit unions. Thus I certainly wouldn't agree that this company clearly passes WP:CORP, though I am now neutral. Will (aka Wimt) 13:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
    • That would be because Tasmania is a fairly small island, and its population does not number in the tens of millions. Neil ╦ 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Entirely correct - but just because it is one of the biggest credit organisations on a small island doesn't necessarily make it notable enough for a Wikipedia article. As I said, I'm neutral on this one now, but I am still doubtful about whether this organisation really is sufficiently set apart from any number of other small credit organisations. Will (aka Wimt) 17:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Is the second biggest credit union on Tasmania more or less important to Wikipedia then the second biggest credit union in Texas? Please think carefully about Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias before you answer. Neil ╦ 17:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
          • That's an interesting question, but we also shouldn't use positive discrimination to attempt to overcome any kind of perceived systematic bias. Now I'm no expert on the differences between US and Australian states but two things stand out. Firstly, Texas has a population of about 25 million I think (a little less than half the size of England) whereas Tasmania has a population of under 500,000 which is only just over half the population of Norfolk. Now are Norfolk's biggest credit unions notable? I don't see why they need necessarily be if they are small organisations. Secondly, I believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that much more government ruling over Tasmania comes centrally from Canberra than comes from Washington over Texas and this may have a relation to whether the fact that a particular credit union is in one particular state over another is particularly important. Will (aka Wimt) 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Thinking through this more, I agree with my original opinion per my comments above and so believe this should be deleted. Will (aka Wimt) 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Nothing sets this aside from any other organisation of its type, fails WP:CORP, unlikely to find independent sources (isn't it ironic that these types of organisations only ever meet Wikipedia notability/sourcing guidelines when they spectacularly collapse? this one hasn't, unlike ACR, PBS etc) Orderinchaos 02:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. One of Tasmania's "two biggest credit unions", according to ABC ([1]). A simple search for "Connect Financial" + Tasmania throws up multiple reliable independant references, more than enough to satisfy WP:CORP:
  • Australian Government Tasmanian Government, simply a list of 25 companies.
  • ABC About workplace relations, not company
  • Tasmanian Times Blog, fails External links
  • Tasmanian Government Sports and Rec - Advertises a grant by said organisation in one corner of the page.
  • ABC About workplace relations, not company
  • Australian Supreme Court ruling 404 File Not Found
  • sponsor of Athletics team Not a notable team per WP:SPORT
  • Money Management Not about Connect Financial (is basically a press release)

Clearly, saying that no reliable sources can be found is incorrect. Clearly passes WP:CORP. Neil ╦ 09:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

These sources do not have Connect Financial as the subject of their article (a key criterion within WP:N) - those that do are clearly not notable (eg the local athletics team's website). I have worked for companies that have been in Supreme Court actions and they are not notable either. Orderinchaos 11:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

"A simple search for...throws up..." Indeed it does, but this is why it is important to *read* the articles as well. As an Honours student I would be crucified by my academic supervisor if I included references in my bibliography without checking them for relevance, neutrality, etc. Zivko85 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Delete Fails WP:CORP. Not one of the above links actually establishes any notability. All we know is that the company exists and does the sort of things most decent companies do. There are 1.2 million companies in Australia, and 1.8 million articles on Wikipedia as a whole. Zivko85 23:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, plenty of google news results. [2] [3] [4]. It has also been the focus of a co-op case study[5]. John Vandenberg 01:35, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• KeepI was going to say delete - but the references in the case study mentioned by John just above me swayed my decision. Plenty of coverage by The Mercury, regarding what seems to have been a controversial issue in 2003-4. Garrie 03:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per John V, i was just like Garrie [[User talk:Savin Me|Savin Me]] 05:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I remembered this used to be called "Connect Credit Union", and did a search for that, finding the following sources: ABC Stateline, ZDNet. There was a big fuss in 2003 when Connect wanted to demututalise, and there is a current fuss over a proposed merger with Island State Credit Union [6]. --Canley 09:19, 5 June 2007 (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.