Talk:List of credit unions
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From VfD:
- Not a very useful start and I doubt it has potential for a useful article, but if someone disagrees, feel free to clean up and salvage. Are we going to try to make a list of ice cream parlors next? -- 07:40, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
- agreed delete - this has no potential--XmarkX 09:35, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep - I just did a reasonable cleanup of the article. We have a List of banks. The Australian credit unions listed in the article have in excess of 30 000 members. While hard disk space is cheap, why delete? - Aaron Hill 11:16, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Lots of lists on wikipedia that are just as "useful" as this one. Wyllium 12:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, a perfectly valid list. - SimonP 14:49, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a job for categories. -- Cyrius|✎ 17:57, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete unless someone can give a valid reason why a list of a handful of names of credit unions that have no external links and no articles is useful, or is likely to grow into something useful. THis isn't a job for categories, it's a job for the Yellow Pages or the Web equivalent thereof. The cost of the space for a useless article is small, and the damage done to Wikipedia by the accumulation of useless articles is small—if they're useless nobody ever sees them. But for an article to be kept I think some tiny probability of usefulness needs to be demonstrated. Dpbsmith 21:11, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Red links make for potential articles. RickK 22:56, Jun 12, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Current list is less than 1/10th of 1% of the full list. However, if we ever did get close to the full list, it would be unverifiable. Rossami 02:06, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Well UK credit unions have to be registered with the Financial Services Authority so they are verifiable. However - every credit union in the world would make an amazingly long list. Some credit union's deserve an article, however. Secretlondon 19:59, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I also agree that some credit unions deserve an article. And I'll add that all credit unions have to register in the US as well (with the OTS if memory serves). So yes, the existence of any individual credit union could eventually be verified. Unfortunately, that does not make the list verifiable. The list will be literally thousands. I certainly am not going to volunteer to keep track of it and submit Freedom of Information requests every time someone edits the US section of the page. This is a good example of the difference between theoretically verifiable and functionally verifiable. Rossami 01:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. The list of US credit unions is easily accessible online, and would take maybe a half hour to incorporate into this page. Voyager640 16:51, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- I also agree that some credit unions deserve an article. And I'll add that all credit unions have to register in the US as well (with the OTS if memory serves). So yes, the existence of any individual credit union could eventually be verified. Unfortunately, that does not make the list verifiable. The list will be literally thousands. I certainly am not going to volunteer to keep track of it and submit Freedom of Information requests every time someone edits the US section of the page. This is a good example of the difference between theoretically verifiable and functionally verifiable. Rossami 01:20, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 04:34, 18 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. --ZekeMacNeil 17:08, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)
end moved dicussion
I know the dicussion ended over a year ago. It is hard to say, but I say delete. An encyclopedia is no place to list all the credit unions out there. It might be better to just have an external link to a website that does list these credit unions and more. There are credit unions that are significant enough to deserve its article, then simply have a cateogry to do the work of listing them all in one page. -Mang Kiko 05:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC) (a credit union advocate)
