Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parama 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Parama Credit Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article about a credit union, referenced exclusively to its own self-published annual report rather than any evidence of reliable source coverage about it in media. As for the notability claim of being "the largest Lithuanian credit union in the world", the idea that a Lithuanian diaspora credit union in Canada could claim that title, when there are at least 67 credit unions in Lithuania according to the national bank of Lithuania, is a bit of an eyebrow-raiser at best -- and even if we adjusted the claim to "largest Lithuanian diaspora credit union in the world outside Lithuania", it's still not supported even by the existing primary source, let alone the reliable sources that would have to independently reverify the truth of the statement before it would constitute a notability claim. Basically, nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the topic from having to have much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Two new sources have been added to the article since this discussion was initiated, but one is still a primary source directory profile on the website of a neighbourhood business improvement association it's directly affiliated with, and the other is a glancing namecheck of its existence in a newspaper article that isn't about it — which means neither of them are bolstering the case for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I'm unable to find evidence of notability. Vanamonde (talk) 05:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Few mentions in passing, fails WP:NORG. It exists and that's about it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sign of significant coverage, does not pass WP:GNG. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 15:26, 28 November 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.