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 Keep while the pure quantity of opinions are for deletion with an argument notability, the source added by Jim Miller from BusinessWest asserts notability. Gnan garra 08:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EverythingCU.com[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Completing nomination for an anon. The main complaint is notability. In the previous afd, there was much handwaving and vague assertions of notability and importance, but nothing concrete. Most of it seemed based on the concept that this website is somehow important in the credit union industry, yet these claims were never elaborated on. --- RockMFR 15:18, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable website. Last AfD was no consensus and no improvement at all appears to have been made to the article as far as reliable 3rd party references to confirm notability. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per WP:SK #1. Yes this article needs sources, but the nomination rationale needs to be a little sharper than "WP:N" surrounded by dismissive language, and we don't know who the nominator is. Townlake (talk) 21:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please don't take the above as uncivil or disrespectful in any way; that is not the intent, though on review I can see how my statement might be taken as a bit sharp itself. Townlake (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this is not a speedy keep for sure. Notability alone is enough of a reason to argue for deletion --T-rex 23:29, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Uncertain Quite possibly notable, but some references are needed to show its importance in the profession.DGG (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When an article has a dotcom address as its title, it may as well be created by a spammer to direct your attention to this site. The only source is the web site's own official page which suggests it lacks notability. Artene50 (talk) 03:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of it; seems like a low-budget type of Myspace.com or a site like it. Y5nthon5a (talk) 04:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N. I disagree with Townlake. This article is not a speedy keep for sure. It is a non-notable website. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable wesbite, fails WP:N ukexpat (talk) 14:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A blog or BBS style website for credit union workers, with about 4,400 members according to the article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added reliable sources including an in-depth story about the site itself and stories in a leading industry publication. There are plenty more non-RS sources out there (mostly blogs) that add to notability and can be used for ((fact)) issues. Jim Miller (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Really on the fence on this one, while the sources were added I'm still hesitant to qualify them as reliable sources. Since the effort was made to find some sources, I'd agree a keep might be prudent for now. Q ^{T C} 04:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ah, I see the notability debate has arisen again. I will recuse myself, but am happy to try to improve the article and answer any questions that anyone may have. There are many fact tags sprinkled into the article that have been verified by the BusinessWest article that Jim Miller has graciously added, and therefore ought to be removed now. I will try to find some additional references and otherwise clean up the article. --Mmpartee (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would like to point out that editor Jim Miller, Jr. is a long-standing member of the credit union movement (at least 2nd generation), so as in industry insider with no relationship to EverythingCU (other than as a member of that online community), and as a contributor to the wikipedia articles on credit unions and NCUSIF, I would think his opinion is worth a certain degree of weight. Again, I'm biased, but he's not. :) --Mmpartee (talk) 18:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I don't know this site well (or Mmpartee) but I do know credit unions. EverythingCU.com is a business that happens to be on-line, like Amazon.com which Wiki clearly considers notable, in spite of .com at the end. The article has not established its notability yet but think about this: credit unions in the US have 87 million members & $515 billion in assets in 9,000 CUs. EverythingCU.com is a kind of virtual community (crossing 'LinkedIN' with Wikipedia and others) with over 6,000 members, most of whom come from this group and who are shaping a substantial part of the future of it. The members who don't come from this group are (in my mind at least) even more interesting: credit union leaders from Europe, Asia, Australia, Latin America. I have no doubt that there is interesting media coverage the authors of this article could cite from several of those countries. This is positioning itself as a global community. Do not expect the mainstream media to notice this or write about it; credit unions rarely are noticed there -- unless they are disappearing, in which case people start to complain very quickly!Brett epic (talk) 05:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ironically prompted by the above post. "The article has not established its notability yet [...]" fails WP:CRYSTAL. Just because something belongs to a wide category is not even close to grounds to notability. Some art I might choose to draw is part of the 'art' category, which has a huge number of interested parties, and could potentially become famous in the future. Does that make it notable? 'Course not. -Rushyo (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2008 (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.