Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EverythingCU.com

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. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 19:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] EverythingCU.com

Article describes an "online community of credit professionals" with 4,400 members. It's a direct failure of WP:WEB, and, for those interested, the Alexa is 3,858,921. The author removed my prod after adding more links. alphaChimp ^laudare 06:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, I'm new to trying to write an article for Wikipedia, and I am operating in good faith. I don't know the proper rules to follow, but I'd like to try to make this right. I believe that EverythingCU.com is indeed notable under guideline 1 of WP:WEB in that EverythingCU.com has been featured in several non-trivial published works that are completely independent. These sources include several articles about EverythingCU.com and its brand event published in CU Times, a weekly magazine based out of Fairfield CT, as well as the Massachusetts Credit Union League's monthly newsletter, and the Pennsylvania Credit Union Association's web site. --Mmpartee 07:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. Thanks for the nice response. Typically non-trivial published works would be things like the NY Times, Washington Post, Times of London, etc. I understand that this might be notable amongst credit professionals, but my feeling is that it does not meet Wikipedia inclusion standards (also see WP:NN). I'm sorry that this is your first experience with Wikipedia. It's pretty rough to have an article proposed for deletion. alphaChimp ^laudare 07:37, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

  Comment. I should modify that statement. It's pretty rough to have your first article nominated for deletion (I proposed it earlier, this is a nomination). alphaChimp ^laudare 14:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete NN (non notable), sources provided lack notability themselves and in my opinion at least are not non-trivial published works. Sorry for this being your first Wikipedia experience as well. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 14:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons given above. Rohirok 16:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral (for now) - I do think this group is known among CU professionals, but I'm not sure. I do recall hearing of them in a couple of the volunteer activities I did with a CU a few months back. However generally a CEO doesn't create an article about their own organization. In any case, sources such as the Palo Alto Weekly are used as examples that establish notability in other (WP:CORP) guidelines. Also, I'm turned off that a marketing and branding expert has their first WP article about their organization. I'd ask that the article address why having 4k+ members or whatever makes them influential in substantial ways. I've been to a CU related workshop, and not every organization that puts such workshops together and has a large mailing list is notable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 07:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. This is a wonderful and fascinating exchange, and I would like to thank all of the editors of wikipedia for being kind, thoughtful, energetic, and rigorous with this and all other WP articles. Yes, I am guilty as charged for being the creator of this particular online community/web site/business, so I must announce and make public my bias here. I also want to state that I very much respect WP, and even more now that I have learned (first hand!) about the standards for inclusion. I am reading the discourse on the notability guidelines and find it extremely fascinating. I see the arguments on both sides. Because I respect WP so much, my first contribution was a very gentle toe in the water; I added an acronym to the list of company name etymologies. I also want to thank the editors for being kind to a newbie. I have read some WP literature on being kind to newbies, and the importance of that to encourage more participation. I am heavily biased in regards to EverythingCU.com's place in the world, so please bear with me as I make an attempt to illuminate this corner of the financial world. Certainly credit unions deserve their article, and each of the 9000 credit unions in the U.S. probably do not each deserve their own article. However there is a large system and network that supports credit unions in the U.S., such as the government agency NCUA, which is the credit union equivalent of the FDIC. Also important is the Credit Union National Association (CUNA), and most states have a credit union league or association. There remain a handful of Corporate Credit Unions (i.e. a credit union's credit union) , and each of them are most likely worthy of inclusion. I would assert that each state's CU League is worthy of inclusion; every one of them is unique and offers significant benefits to their credit union constituents and therefore millions of people who benefit from credit union membership. Credit Union Executives Society (CUES) and the National Association of Federal Credit Unions (NAFCU) are two more very significant organizations devoted to the cause of helping credit unions and the professionals that run them. The credit union movement is also a worldwide movement, and credit unions are significant in many countries such as Canada, Ireland, Australia, and in many developing countries and economies. The World Council of Credit Unions (WOCCU) based in Madison WI furthers the industry throughout the world. While I would like to argue that EverythingCU.com is of equal significance to the credit union industry as these other institutions, it would be inappropriate of me to do so since my bias is clear. But I would be happy to address specific concerns in this matter when asked, so I will attempt to do that with as little bias as possible. I will end this comment with two further thoughts: I will not take personal offense if it is decided that the EverythingCU.com article should be deleted (thank you again to everyone for being kind in the deletion opinions). I also see that there is much additional information on credit unions that ought to be added (such as articles about CUNA Mutual Group, CUES, NAFCU, WOCCU, Edward Filene, Dora Maxwell, Louise McCarren Herring, more history of credit unions), and I will do what I can to insure that appropriate material is added and edited for this particular industry in general. Thank you! --Mmpartee 14:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I think in this case, this entry needs to be weighed for its significance in the industry it serves. If there are indeed 9000 credit unions in the US, then this site serves almost half of them. I think that is significant and notable. --Aguerriero (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Reasons stated above are spot on. Doesn't seem to be notable. --ThatBajoranGuy 07:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Aguerriero. This reminds me a little of Alien Workshop (AfD); we need sources, yes, but WP:WEB is much better at distinguishing notable blogs from nonnotable blogs than it is at distinguishing whether or not a relatively unique site like this should have an article. Mangojuice^talk 14:53, 11 August 2006 (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.