Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Most people voting to keep seem to be members of the forums. That aside, no evidence was presented that this meets WP:WEB, non-trivial third-party coverage. The 3 references other than forum posts never ammount to more than a sentence each about this website. W.marsh 20:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Actuarial Outpost
Non-notable online community failing WP:V/WP:WEB. I request sources on the talk page for the article, but haven't gotten anything besides blog links or trivial mentions. Only 14 unique Google hits. Delete. Wickethewok 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, fails the criterias of WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 95, 237--TBCΦtalk? 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. The actuarial community as a whole is not well-known. Most actuaries, students, underwriters, and other insurance personnel will not have Alexa installed on their computers, due to corporate security measures, and violating them is grounds for termination of employment. As such, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Bias in the Alexa test, the Alexa ranking is not really applicable here, because the vast majority of users are not Alexa users. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google bias, articles that have near nothing to do with pop culture are at a distinct diasadvantage when it comes to the google test. Outside of the small actuarial/insurance community, I am sure most people have not heard of this site. However, in its field, it is eminently notable. Almost every college or university with an actuarial program (at least in the US and Canada) links to this site. The major actuarial societies in the US and Canada link to this site. When exams are released, many more students flock to this site over the CAS and SOA homepages because of the greater robustness of the servers. There are special forums for actuaries and students from all over the world. The authors of the most widely used actuarial study manuals frequent the exam sections of the site, answer student questions, and often base their new errata on comments from students at the site. It has one of the largest listings of actuarial jobs, and job searching advice. Even candidates for office of the SOA and CAS will make statements, engage in debate and dialogue, and campaign on this board, sometimes more than they do on the societies own home pages. It has been discussed in the publications of the societies, such as The Future Actuary -- the publication of the SOA geared to actuarial students and Future Fellows -- the publication of the CAS geared to students. As a credentialed actuary, I believe very strongly that this is one of those rare situations in which the exceptions to WP:WEB outweigh the general guidelines and that this site is eminently notable in its small field, which is sufficienty notable for wikipedia as a whole. -- Avi 03:43, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- But are there any reliable sources than focus on the website instead of briefly mentioning it? Also, being notable in a "small field" does not always make a subject notable enough for Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am of the firm belief that in this case it does make the subject notable enough. Obviously there is disagreement, which is why there is this AfD, but as someone who works IN the profession, although I cannot add any of my own commentary as that would be WP:OR, I do feel that my opinion on this is not without merit
. I would ask that people look at the article, the subject, and the context before making a decision in this case, because of the small niche that actuaries hold. Thanks. -- Avi 04:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of a seperate article, couldn't an external link or brief mention in the actuary article suffice? Though I personally don't think the website is notable, I do admit that it seems to be a great resource for those interested in the field.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is exactly what people find so chilling and laugable about Wikipedia and why I avoid participating more than a few minutes here and there. Some dude whose contributions include write-ups about every video game imaginable, which I personally don't find notable or contribute to society at all (so let's remove those!), and who has no knowledge of actuarial science, comes along and says "delete". And those are the kinds of people in charge. Hmmm, so actuaries and other interested people have to constantly defend this article against attack from people outside the profession. That's just odd. They don't have time for that foolishness. This'd be like if I went over to some random engineering field and started nominating stuff for deletion. I wouldn't know what I was talking about so I'd stay out of it completely. Sources have already been quoted from two of the main actuarial societies in the world. The UK's society discussed the Outpost in an article as well and it's somewhere on their the-actuary.org.uk website. And assuming that Google is the be-all end-all source of discussions and articles about the Outpost is silly. There have been print publications mentions of the Outpost that never made it to the web, too. Surely this is at least as notable as "Super Play Action Football". How many third-party mentions is notable enough? Also, one would think that such forward-minded people such as those editing Wikipedia entries would accept that bloggers discussing the Outpost *is* notable. This is a tiny profession. Sorry it isn't as big as Super Mario Bros. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- TheActuary, instead of resorting to ad hominem, try focusing on the issues at hand. Regarding your comments on my contributions, I focus on a variety of subjects, such as Christianity in Mongolia and Planetary Fourier Spectrometer, but that's beside the point. Being discussed by bloggers does not make a subject notable, as blogs are not considered reliable sources. I also suggest assuming good faith first before claiming that those who disagree with you are "forward-minded people". --TBCΦtalk? 16:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- This is exactly what people find so chilling and laugable about Wikipedia and why I avoid participating more than a few minutes here and there. Some dude whose contributions include write-ups about every video game imaginable, which I personally don't find notable or contribute to society at all (so let's remove those!), and who has no knowledge of actuarial science, comes along and says "delete". And those are the kinds of people in charge. Hmmm, so actuaries and other interested people have to constantly defend this article against attack from people outside the profession. That's just odd. They don't have time for that foolishness. This'd be like if I went over to some random engineering field and started nominating stuff for deletion. I wouldn't know what I was talking about so I'd stay out of it completely. Sources have already been quoted from two of the main actuarial societies in the world. The UK's society discussed the Outpost in an article as well and it's somewhere on their the-actuary.org.uk website. And assuming that Google is the be-all end-all source of discussions and articles about the Outpost is silly. There have been print publications mentions of the Outpost that never made it to the web, too. Surely this is at least as notable as "Super Play Action Football". How many third-party mentions is notable enough? Also, one would think that such forward-minded people such as those editing Wikipedia entries would accept that bloggers discussing the Outpost *is* notable. This is a tiny profession. Sorry it isn't as big as Super Mario Bros. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Instead of a seperate article, couldn't an external link or brief mention in the actuary article suffice? Though I personally don't think the website is notable, I do admit that it seems to be a great resource for those interested in the field.--TBCΦtalk? 04:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I am of the firm belief that in this case it does make the subject notable enough. Obviously there is disagreement, which is why there is this AfD, but as someone who works IN the profession, although I cannot add any of my own commentary as that would be WP:OR, I do feel that my opinion on this is not without merit
- But are there any reliable sources than focus on the website instead of briefly mentioning it? Also, being notable in a "small field" does not always make a subject notable enough for Wikipedia.--TBCΦtalk? 04:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. This article has already been nominated for deletion before and passed the test. As a credentialed actuary as well, I can say that there is no other resource like the Outpost on the internet. You didn't receive "trivial sources" and I question your motives here. 14 unique Google hits is laughably untrue. The article is self-explanatory. I believe there are archived discussions on Avi's page that document prior dubious arguments for deletion. -- TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being nominated before does not make an article immune from being nominated again. Also, the result of the previous AfD was no consensus, not keep. As for your comment on Wickethewok's motives, I suggest you please assume good faith. --TBCΦtalk? 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- TA, TBC is correct, it was not a straight keep. As for me personally, I believe that Wickethewok was acting in good faith when this was nominated, I just think that this is an example of a pivotal, if not seminal, forum in a small field that is notable enough for wikipedia. For example, it was formed to be an anonymous registry forum in backlash to the CAS and SOA crack-downs (see the article). In a field where there may be a few thousand people worldwide at the time (casualty actuaries of the CAS/CIA), almost everybody knew each other, and people were afraid to speak about what they really felt about certain political issues fr fear of reprisal on the job. This forum almost single-handedly combatted that, from what I understand. TA would know more about this, he's been an actuary longer than I have. -- Avi 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Those are quite the claims regarding the importance of this forum. Can you provide something backing them up? Wickethewok 05:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- As of now, only my own experience, which is WP:OR and old posts from the boards, which I have linked. I can interview the two creators, Glenn and Traci, but I believe e-mails and personal interviews are not the best reliable sources. The actuarial field is not one in the news spotlight, as a professional society it has no union magazine, and the trade publications have mentioned it, but not done a piece on it as a whole. I guess I can try and get some of the editors at the CAS to do a featured piece in Future Fellows or something, but that wouldn't be out for months
. What would you suggest, knowing that the entire field is not "sexy" and is not going to be in any major news outlet? -- Avi 11:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- TA, TBC is correct, it was not a straight keep. As for me personally, I believe that Wickethewok was acting in good faith when this was nominated, I just think that this is an example of a pivotal, if not seminal, forum in a small field that is notable enough for wikipedia. For example, it was formed to be an anonymous registry forum in backlash to the CAS and SOA crack-downs (see the article). In a field where there may be a few thousand people worldwide at the time (casualty actuaries of the CAS/CIA), almost everybody knew each other, and people were afraid to speak about what they really felt about certain political issues fr fear of reprisal on the job. This forum almost single-handedly combatted that, from what I understand. TA would know more about this, he's been an actuary longer than I have. -- Avi 04:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Being nominated before does not make an article immune from being nominated again. Also, the result of the previous AfD was no consensus, not keep. As for your comment on Wickethewok's motives, I suggest you please assume good faith. --TBCΦtalk? 04:14, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Delete Unless we get some proper sources. Proof by assertion isn't going to cut it. Catchpole 07:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)- change to Keep now the article has better sources. Catchpole 21:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Let's play Good Idea / Bad Idea! Ok, I'll go first! Good Idea: Writing an article with sources. Bad idea: Writing an article with sources but the only sources are the forum itself. Let's face it, folks, when your references section includes things like (“Lucy”'s response to “Brad”. Actuarial Outpost forums), you know the article's in deep trouble. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'll add some references. TheActuary 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom. --- RockMFR 04:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Strong Keep. Hi! Tom here, the webmaster / moderator of the Actuarial Outpost. I've noticed several votes for deletion and I've managed to find a common similarity. They are all more than likely, not members of the outpost, not actuaries, and have never taken an actuarial exam.
- Since the transfer of the administration, the site has grown to over 10,000 member and 1.8 million posts. Those numbers represent a large actuarial community that has been helping students pass exams for over 7 years now. The Outpost may seem insignificant compared to Wikipedia, but they share a common goal; spreading knowledge and helping students succeed.
- Since the creation of the Actuarial Outpost, we have helped numerous students pass exams. I saw the mention of "Only 14 unique Google hits" as some sort of criteria for recognition on wikipedia, but if you do a search on our site for "I passed" or "woo hoo, I finally passed" or perhaps "I passed! Thanks everybody for the big help. I couldn’t have done it with out you guys!" you might notice that you get a few more than just 14 hits.
- So what. . .Why should it be on Wikipedia, you ask? I travel to all of the SOA and CAS meetings and even go to the smaller club meetings around the US such as the IABA and just last week I went to the Chinese Actuarial Clubs annual Karaoke Party (I sang some Tony Bennett). There are two thing that I notice at all of these meetings: 1) People who come up to me and thank me for all of the hard work we do to help actuaries pass exams and keep them informed on the latest current events and 2) people that say "Actuarial Outpost . . . what's that?"
- What I'm getting at here is even though we have a large group of actuaries that use the Actuarial Outpost, there is an even larger number that have never even heard of it. Wikipedia is well known amongst students for finding information and wikipedia has the opportunity to give them the inside scoop on a tool for learning, that's made just for actuaries. If wikipedia is not in the business of spreading information and helping people learn, then by all means, push the big red button, but as far as I can see, this article should stay, according to the philosophy that I have perceived Wikipedia is run by.
- P.S. As a moderator, I realize how time consuming it is dealing with all of these little issues on a daily basis, but I assure you that this issue I take dear to heart. My main goal when I took over responsibility of the Outpost was to help students continue to learn and pass exams, and that is the only reason Glenn & Traci were willing to give me control of the site. I like to think they have been happy with what I have done.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outpost Tom (talk • contribs) 00:11, November 7, 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I'm afraid I'll have to debunk your common similarity as I am an actuary (albeit of the UK variety). Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to advertise your website. Catchpole 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I understand that this may come across as an advertisement to some, but I think that may too broad of an accusation, since it's not like we're selling tee-shirts or something to that effect. To the contrary, we spend a lot of time and money making sure this resource is available to the actuarial community as a service. This is a non-profit venture to facilitate learning, just like Wikipedia. The wikipedia page was not created by me, nor ever edited by me, but rather by a member who felt that it was information worth sharing. As for my assumption of the common similarity, my assumptions only tend to be 97.5% correct with an error of +/- 2.5%, which I feel is actuarially sound .
- The Actuarial Outpost Foundation is a non-profit organization with the goal of providing free knowledge to every person in the world. Meeting this goal through the maintenance, development and distribution of free content, The Actuarial Outpost relies on the donations from it's members and actuarial companies to run its vBulletin-based projects.--Outpost Tom 19:26, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I understand that this may come across as an advertisement to some, but I think that may too broad of an accusation, since it's not like we're selling tee-shirts or something to that effect. To the contrary, we spend a lot of time and money making sure this resource is available to the actuarial community as a service. This is a non-profit venture to facilitate learning, just like Wikipedia. The wikipedia page was not created by me, nor ever edited by me, but rather by a member who felt that it was information worth sharing. As for my assumption of the common similarity, my assumptions only tend to be 97.5% correct with an error of +/- 2.5%, which I feel is actuarially sound
- Comment I'm afraid I'll have to debunk your common similarity as I am an actuary (albeit of the UK variety). Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to advertise your website. Catchpole 07:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- A sampling of reliable third party sources demonstrating notability were added at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actuarial_Outpost#References TheActuary 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- Sources added include references to the Casualty Actuarial Society (CAS) and the Society of Actuaries. If the CAS's candidate liason (candidates are people taking actuarial exams who have not received their designations) is specifically tasked to monitor the AO as the barometer of candidate feeling about the society and the exams, I think that is a very strong proof of notability. If you disagree, please explain. Thank you. -- Avi 02:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Fails WP:WEB HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - Numerous third party authorities in the industry have now been cited in the article, including some from one of the organizations that administers the actuarial designation in North America. Last time this article was submitted for deletion other references were provided as well, including references in the New York Times and other publications. There's plenty of external authoritative publications referencing the site in question. [User:Waterwheel]
-
- I must disagree. Half of the references listed barely mention this forum/website at all. The other half of the references are to posts on the forum. Wickethewok 21:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
- You made that point clear when you nominated this article for deletion . WP:WEB itself states that there are times for exceptions to firm application of the guideline, and the notability of this site in the tiny niche that actuaries hold in my opinion eminnently qualifies it for notability, Alexa and Google notwithstanding (and explained why they are inapplicable according to WP:WEB itself above). -- Avi 23:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
- STRONG Keep It is a core policy of Wikipedia that you do not delete things for simply not being notable. Wikipedia has pages for individual Star Trek episodes. It is ridiculous to keep an episode summary, and then to delete an entire community. *jb 00:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Core policy? Where? Can you link to it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Under official policies, [1] - "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. This means that there is no practical limit to the number of topics we can cover other than verifiability and the other points presented on this page." This is official policy, as opposed to simply a guideline. If you are going to start enforce notability, then you should begin by proposing the deletion of all pages for Star Trek episodes that are not individually notable (which would be all, except for maybe the one with the first interracial kiss, but even then that would be better in the main Star Trek article). *jb 01:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- But that policy does not say that you cannot delete things for not being notable. It says we have more latitude than other encyclopedias, not that we have to include everything. It does not invalidate consensus any way here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 19:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Core policy? Where? Can you link to it? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:33, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, the existence of the subject of the article is eminently verifiable per WP:V; the only worthwhile deletion criterion in the nomination is that it fails WP:WEB. I argue that WP:WEB is the wrong guideline to decide the notability of this community. Yes, it is a community with a strong web presence, but as the website itself is not innovative as a website (it appears to be just a community blog and a vBulletin), the governing guideline should be WP:ORG (or WP:COMPANY, if you prefer). Now WP:ORG is not ratified, but I think the text of the proposed guideline has reasonably wide support. It is clear that the Actuary Outpost is "national or international in scope". The next clause, "information can be verified by a third party source" is more problematic, as most of the article text is from primary sources. Per WP:RS, a subject can be used as a primary source of information about itself, but such information should ideally be supplemented by secondary and tertiary sources. In my opinion, the text of the Actuary Outpost article should be better sourced and details that are not verifiable from third parties even in principle should be removed, but this criticism is better suited for a peer review than AfD. (And I heavily encourage the principal authors of this article to put it through a peer review, where I might provide a more thorough criticism.) — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fun Fact Reference Oh yea, forgot to mention, one of our members (with 0 posts) is a screen writer who is using our site to do research for a character in an upcoming movie that will have an actuary as one of the characters. Does that count as reference? Will there be partial credit? Outpost Tom 19:14, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
- Fun Fact Reference Oh yea, forgot to mention, one of our members (with 0 posts) is a screen writer who is using our site to do research for a character in an upcoming movie that will have an actuary as one of the characters. Does that count as reference? Will there be partial credit?
- 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.
