Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of credit unions in the United States


 * 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. B music  ian  01:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

List of credit unions in the United States

 * – ( View AfD View log )

"Partial list". It admits that there are OVER NINE THOUSAND ("What, nine thousand? That can't be right! It must be broken!") of them. If the list were complete, it would be long and indiscriminate. The list is already gathering redlinks and spam — listing every credit union in the US would be akin to listing every McDonald's in a state. Only a select few are notable. Many credit unions have only one or two locations. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect. Despite what the scanner says, there's no reason why large, invariably incomplete lists are necessarily bad.  However, in an effort to determine what community consensus might be on a similar topic, I looked at List of banks of the United States of America, which has redirected to Banking in the United States without any complaint whatsoever since mid-2008, with the target article merely providing a link to an external resource where such a list can be found.  I feel that is probably the best solution here as well. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this list is only for US credit unions that already have articles, it is neither large nor incomplete. The list of banks in the US was redirected because it was large and difficult to maintain. Few credit unions are notable enough to warrant articles, making this list quite manageable. Gobōnobo  + c 21:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Striking my previous response; WP:CLN is fairly convincing as a stylistic argument for retention.  I wonder if the corresponding List of banks in the United States should not be revived in a similar capacity despite its length? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:54, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, length is really a poor reason for deleting something. Overly long lists can just be split into sublists, organized by whatever shared facts makes sense for banks, and because different list structures can coexist in parallel we can have multiple means of organizing them. I think in the case of some lists they have even been split into sublists alphabetically, like List of banks of the United States, A-F. postdlf (talk) 21:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CLN which says that categories and lists are synergistic. This list is complementary to Category:Credit unions of the United States and is intended to solely list US credit unions that already have articles on Wikipedia. I've removed the six links that were either red links or external links which were not within the scope of the list. I've also revised the wording to clarify the scope of the article. Gobōnobo  + c 21:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Standard list which reflects a Wiki category (which by the way does not contain more than about 100 to 200 CUs). Softlavender (talk) 02:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, we do not delete lists for being incomplete, and it is completely ordinary practice to limit such lists to only notable examples that merit articles (of which there are clearly enough to justify a list). Nor do we delete lists because of cleanup issues. This is really one of the worst deletion noms I've seen in a long time. The nominator is experienced enough to know better. postdlf (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, with caveat: If this list is only about notable credit unions in the US, it either needs to have that clearly and explicitly stated in the lede, or it needs to be renamed to List of notable credit unions in the United States, or both. I favor the first option, but the others should be considered. As it stands right now, it is stated in the lede, but it's not emphatic enough. I think I'll edit it for more emphasis. - Jorgath (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus is not to include self-referential terms like "notable" in titles, whether article or category. I've seen variations as far as whether the lede states that though. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Discriminate and narrowly focused. Notable. Verifiable. Finite. Northamerica1000(talk) 12:27, 7 April 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.