Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) B  music  ian  04:16, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable credit union. Fails WP:N as not having "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Does not satisfy any of the standards in Notability (organizations and companies). Being "oldest and largest entirely student-run credit union in the country" doesn't confer inherent notability absent multiple independent reliable sources, per the general notability guideline. And, no, I do not believe that the presence of Georgetown University-related sources does not count toward the notability guideline. The purpose of the notability requirement is to only include subjects which have attracted "sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." The fact that a Georgetown entity is covered by a Georgetown student paper is does not satisfy that purpose. --GrapedApe (talk) 22:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * (Note that the article was created by, who is now blocked as a role account--raises issues of WP:COI and possible POV-pushing). GrapedApe (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I've cleaned up the article, and provided sources from The Washington Post and BusinessWeek among others. I would specificity point to where these published sources highlight the "The organization’s longevity and size of membership", which are the first considerations in determining notability according to WP:CLUB. The editor who first created the article in 2008 is irrelevant to its current status.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 22:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * A half paragraph in Business Week. That makes Washington Post 1 legitimate independent reliable source.  The "longevity" factor Patrickneil speaks of in WP:CLUB is a sub-consideration of the secondary factor "Factors that have attracted widespread attention." That's not sufficient on its own.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * At WP:UNI we've been over it time and again, and the consensus is always that independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be. While they wouldn't be enough on their own, they work to provide backup for The Washington Post, BusinessWeek, The Boston Herald, The Dayton Daily News, Bloomberg, and The College Buzz Book. So, a multimillion dollar corporation with thousands of members across the United States, and the oldest and largest in its field. I'm tempted to ask for Speedy Keep.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 00:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 02:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - boring but obviously notable, as demonstrated by Patrick's sources. --He to Hecuba (talk) 15:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Thanks to Patrick this article now meets the requirements of WP:N and WP:GNG with multiple reliable, independent secondary sources. Gobonobo  T C 21:47, 5 February 2012 (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.