Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union (3rd 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Georgetown University Alumni & Student Federal Credit Union
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources used in the article are independent reliable sources. Everything is inherently involved with Georgetown University, such as the student paper, or the credit union is not even a central aspect of the source. — Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 06:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * None? No offense Ryulong, but there ARE independent sources. Right in the article. Look again. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Eg. The Washington post Bonkers The Clown (talk) 08:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Not the focus, opinion piece, can't access it, can't access it and the abstract doesn't seem like GUASFCU is the subject, not the focuse of the piece.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 08:56, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hm. One point to note. Independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, just because its not the main focus does not mean that there's no mention of it. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to kindly bring your attention to the fact that the sources clearly highlight "The organization’s longevity and size of membership", which are the first considerations in determining notability according to WP:CLUB. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the sources are to the school newspaper. Could you tell me the sources completely unaffiliated with the school that mention this "longevity and size of membership"?— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 09:59, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Independent campus news sources should not be rejected, much as other locally focused newspapers wouldn't be, so school newspapers should still be accepted. While they wouldn't be enough on their own, they work to provide backup for the independent sources which mention the GUASFCU. And hence, such a combination would establish notability and pass WP:N and WP:GNG. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are campus news sources really independent from the subject here? It would seem to me that the Georgetown University student newspaper more or less has to report on things like the credit union.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 19:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Article passes notability guidelines. Side note: the GUASFCU is a multimillion dollar corporation with thousands of members across the United States, and the oldest and largest in its field. Bonkers The Clown (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't really see what's changed since February. And I don't know how you say that its not the focus of The Washington Post article from last year. I'd like to see it be written less like an advertisement, but that shouldn't land it here. Honestly, I think this is very good for a student business, an article that others can look to as a template. I made a few edits today, adding another reference, and integrating the Philanthropy section as was recently requested.-- Patrick, o Ѻ ∞ 16:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Also, "Can't access it" is not a valid denunciation of a reliable source.  --  Wikipedical (talk)
 * 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.