Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawartha Credit Union
Regardless of type, companies are not handed an automatic free pass over  just because of the size of their asset base, or because they've gotten mentioned in legislature speeches as an ''example'' of a broader topic and ''not'' the actual ''subject'' under debate in their own right. Too many of the sources here are |primary sources that do not assist notability at all, and the ones that ''are'' |reliable sources are virtually all ''local'' coverage in the credit union's ''local'' service area, not aiding in getting it over DEPTH as the subject of more than just local coverage. The only thing that speaks to notability here at all is the "25 best small companies to work for" listicle, but one blurb in a listicle is not ''substantive'' enough to get a company over CORPDEPTH all by itself as the ''only'' evidence of more than local reliable source coverage. So no, none of this is good enough at all
— User:Bearcat, 16:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:CORP||WP:PRIMARYSOURCES||WP:RS||WP:CORPDEPTH (Wikipedia:Notability)