SAFE Credit Union : The current references do not contribute to notability.   A Google search didn't turn up anything.  Citrivescence ( talk ) 03:40, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance , Companies ,  and California .  WC Quidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .    I have added sources to the article but haven't really tackled any of the badly-written prose.   Meets WP:GNG .  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 18:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete WP:NCORP is the guideline we should be looking at.  This guideline requires a more strict look at the sourcing and their quality.  We need to see sources that go beyond just announcing standard business transactions and routine news coverage.  The sources are connected or routine coverage which do not meet the threshold of WP:CORPDEPTH .  McMatter ( talk ) / ( contrib ) 03:50, 5 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  03:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Appears this does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of secondary sources.  Let'srun ( talk ) 04:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Other than the four newspaper articles?  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 16:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] RecycledPixels , I haven't examined the sources in this article but my experience closing AFDs has demonstrated to me that WP:NCORP is a very tough standard to meet.  L iz Read!  Talk!  03:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 07:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment already stated keep above.   I'm reluctant to personally invest a significant effort into improving this article due to some potentially-perceived COI conflicts.   But mainly because I'm not interested in writing articles about companies.   But since I am very familiar with the company, I have spent a relatively small amount of time sorting through newspapers.com archives to add some reliable, independent references that I think should meet notability concerns.   Since this company has invested in a sponsorship deal with the city's premiere concert venue, most of the top pages of search results will turn up trivial mentions of the company in the context of various performances.   So you have to use your Google-Fu to exclude mentions of the performing arts center in order to fairly evaluate the notability of the article subject.   But you'll still have to wade through a whole lot of articles about various branches being robbed, ATM thefts, and so-and-so just got promoted in the company, and other trivial, non-significant mentions.    The company is not well-suited to the typical AFD thirty-second google search to glance at whether it's a notable company.   It's the second-largest credit union in the city, by assets (I recently added that reference to the article).    This isn't an article about some garage band, or an "up-and-coming" business trying to generate enough buzz to survive its next round of funding.   Hope that helps.  RecycledPixels ( talk ) 08:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , as seen here , there are about 50+ instances of independent coverage just within the past two years alone.  In addition to the vast expansive local coverage, there's a quote in the New York Times and a paragraph in the Associated Press .  Left guide ( talk ) 16:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , there is significant coverage in newspapers.  Dr vulpes ( 💬 • 📝 ) 23:32, 15 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus