Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marsden Building Society

: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 no consensus. Rather than relisting this a third time, I believe it's best close this as no consensus. In essence this is a contested PROD as there's not been enough discussion to have a "keep" or "delete" outcome. (non-admin closure) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 11:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

=[[:Marsden Building Society]]=

:{{la|Marsden Building Society}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marsden_Building_Society Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Marsden Building Society}})

Non-notable organization that fails WP:GNG. A proposed deletion was removed by a conflict of interest editor. Aspects (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:12, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Comment there’s plenty of refs as you might expect from an institution that’s 150 years old, but nothing with much depth. Lenders tend to make the national headlines if there’s a financial scandal and rarely otherwise. What kind of refs would we expect e.g. for a US bank with branches only in Iowa and Nebraska, or a German bank with branches only in Bavaria? They’re also unlikely to make national news with in-depth coverage. Mccapra (talk) 11:03, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
There appear to be articles about all the independent building societies, which, collectively, were very significant, though less so now. It doesnt seem sensible to delete just this one article and leave all the others. There is certainly significant reporting of the Society, but not recently, so it wont appear on Google. But the test is not whether it appears on the internet. Rathfelder (talk) 11:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Google Print and Hathitrust have digitized a huge number of works from before 1924. If it doesn't appear in them, I'd question significant reporting of the society before 1924.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:03, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:10, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I don’t see a good reason yet for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It makes no sense to delete just one out of :Category:Building societies of England. This article is better than some of the others, but to maintain our coverage of these important organisations we need all of them. Rathfelder (talk) 09:28, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:31, 31 March 2019 (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.