Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost

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 of the debate was no consensus. I discounted the views of anyone who decided to treat this simply as a vote; however, there were mercifully few "votes" without any discussion. I don't think either side of the discussion really makes any points that overwhelm the other side's. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 06:23, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is more about the dispute between the forum amins than about the forums itself. -- Drini 03:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep As the original author of the article, it had very little to do with the dispute (which is funny, a 1.5 million post, 8700 member board is in dispute with a sub-2000 post 40 member board?!?) and more with the history of the most prolific, widespread, and well-known actuarial board in the world. A few people's vendetta does not make this a candidate for deletion! Avi 04:03, 19 May 2006 04:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Drini, please check interiot's new tool, I have as many edits in the name space as I do afd. I would request you investigate before accusing. Thank you -- Avi 21:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was a mistake from my part. I meant to put it below the next one.

• Delete Forum w Alexa rank of 77,439. Andrew Lenahan Starblind

The above account is used almost exclusively for AFD participation -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hundreds, if not thousands, of actuaries who use the forum cannot install Alexa toolbars on our work computers--we'd be fired :) -- Avi 05:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep This entry isn't just about a 'forum'. It's probably the most visited site in the actuarial profession and it's used as a resource not just a chat room. The unique history of the site also makes this entry noteworthy in the annals of the actuarial profession. Suggesting it's a forum with an alexa rank disregards the importance of this site and the information contained within it, particularly to the profession. There's a case could be made that this site is the realization of the actuarial profession. The site itself also holds quite a bit of symbolism within the profession, just like the iron ring does. -glenn

- besides, alexa rank doesn't hold much water in this community. These folks don't have toolbars installed, it's severly misrepresented with that. Check the .edu backlinks of this site and www.actuary.ca if you want a better idea (www.actuary.ca is the same site). --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waterwheel (talk • contribs) .

The above account is new and has never edited before -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No assertion of notability per WP:WEB, vanity, advertising. --InShaneee 04:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Being the largest and most visited actuarial site in the world is pretty notable, I would think. -- Avi 05:15, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong keep.. Notable - it was recently mentioned in the New York Times. And a whole slew of other national and regional traditional media on some mathematical pieces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waterwheel (talk • contribs)

Second statement by Waterwheel -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:WEB. Sandstein 05:26, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: ... because no linked-to proofs of notability are provided, as required by WP:WEB. We do not judge based on assertions of notability, credible though they may be, but rather on verifiable sources. Sandstein 10:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:WEB Ydam 08:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • After looking at the evidence and cases put foreward I do believe that this forum is notable at least within the actuary field. Therefore I change my decision to Keep Ydam 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what WEB says, the above assertions of notability are strong enough that I think we should look into it.

Preferably I would like to see something white-on-black (on screen) or black-on-white (on paper) though, if possible. Has the site been referenced from any (or many) 3rd party sources? If so, could you respectively provide links to a couple, or provide a scan? Kim Bruning 10:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see someone mentioned New York Times. If you can show us the NYT article in question (note: such excerpts and quotations are permitted under US law under "fair use", especially for uses such as this), that should be sufficient for a keep. Kim Bruning 10:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for now. Lots of weasel wording ("...it may well be the largest and most dynamic such gathering of actuaries in the world" May well be?), lots of assertions' not much actual sourcing. My best friend's an actuary -- I'll ask his opinion when I get the chance. --Calton | Talk 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for now. I agree there is too much weasel wording ("...it may well be the largest and most dynamic such gathering of actuaries in the world"), "lots of assertions' not much actual sourcing." If it is dynamic, it is becuase of the chat rooms, things like palindrome post count, what's the first thing that pops into your,.... I agree that the spin off site is not significant for it's own entry, but it is noteworthy to be included in the other entry, one voice, be it Patty Sheehan can be deemed significant (source unavailable). The poster glenn above also has a personal vendetta against the spin off site, he was posting IP addresses, employer information and other information in an attempt to intimidate users of the spin off forum. I would have been fine with a neutral intervention that was a compromise, but it is clear that Avarum and his sock puppets want the entry to be nothing more than an advertisement for the owner of the ___domain name, an actuarial recruiting firm. Such biased advertising has no place in an encylopedia, so I would say delete it.--Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA

The above account is 3 days old and it's only edits are to this afd and the article in question -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, WP:WEB Not Notable, but it is dynamic. Dominick ^(TALK) 13:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above account is only 2 days old -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I believe this is the NY Time story that has mentioned the site. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/14/books/14fibo.html User:Mountainhawk 10:46, 19 May 2006

The above account had only 2 edits prior this AFD -- Drini 20:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Saying that this is the most visited actuarial site/forum seems a bit misleading. How many other actuarial sites are there? And how many visitors do they get? --cholmes75 15:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per many of the editors above. The NY Times article means nothing- it mentions actuarialoutpost. It's not like the article is about the site. The site fails WP:WEB, period. -- Kicking222 15:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep Notability has to be evaluated in context. The actuarial profession is a relatively small one and so should not be expected to achieve the same numerical results as Britney Spears. An Alexa return of 77,439 is extremely impressive in this respect. Please note the Alexa cut-off point is actually 100,000. Tyrenius 17:24, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think even most actuaries will agree that 77K is less than 100k. What context makes something notable? Is it the largest discussion forum for "actuaries" who aren't yet actuaries and may never become actuaries, who are still taking exams, who are under 30 years old and favor liberal politics, and is supported by a recruiting company and a non-actuary in Canada? I guess if you put enough constraints on notability you can make anything notable. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 18:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – With Alexa ranks, a smaller number is better. The site ranked at 1 is the most visited site on the Internet (by users with Alexa toolbars). Hence a site ranked at 77,439 is more popular than one ranked at 100,000 – Gurch 13:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Many, if not close to 50%, of the users of the Actuarial Outpost are credentialed actuaries. It is incorrect for anyone to say that it is "only" mostly aspiring actuaries, as that is false. It includes thousands of credentialed actuaries notable in their field. – TheActuary 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Oops my BS meter just went off again. I can claim 5% credentialed actuaries at your site and you can claim 50% because there is no source. In fact if you are the site promoter (former webmaster - glenn cooke whose blog is trashing me right now and calling for my employer to take action against me) then I can easily check the Soa.org directory of membership and see that even you are not a credentialled actuary. There is NO mechanism in your sign up to check if someone is credentialed, much less if they were signing up for multiple id's in the past (until the change to non-public email requirement). Given that much of your activity (as far as diverse posters - not the 10 who regularily post to the reef or political) is in the exam section - it is fair to say that those taking exams are for the most part non-credentialed and once they stop taking exams they rarely return (although your member list is rarely if ever purged of members who posted). Bottom line, you make outrageous claims with no data.Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 01:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A small sampling that indicates a large portion of Outpost members are credentialed actuaries: http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showthread.php?t=9141 .TheActuary 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep and seriously clean up. Some people got pissed at the site and screwed up the article -- it happens. If we take out the silliness and ad-like language, we appear to be left with info on a website notable in its community. .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish 21:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – on the condition that the article undergoes a major re-write to remove all traces of the aforementioned "dispute" – Gurch 13:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - appears in first page of Google results for "actuary", but needs to be cleaned up for NPOV. —Steven G. Johnson 16:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert the dispute-related stuff, and keep. Stifle (talk) 23:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the above votes, as the original author of the article, I'd be glad to remove all traces of the immaterial dispute, as well as clean up the language to a more neutral form. -- Avi 02:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is not a vote, but I would be happy with the article as originally edited by an outsider ^demon, I do not believe that an insider such as Avi is going to present things in an unbiased way. From Avi's POV it is nothing more than a vanity contribution. Joe Smythe, AAAA, MAAAA 16:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your need to try (but, unfortunately, fail) to damage the Outpost because your feelings are hurt is very sad. You need to grow up and move on. TheActuary 22 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. An actuarial web community- how refreshingly unusual compared to the average gamer forum that is frequently noominated on AfD. Looks like we need this as part of our coverage on the insurance industry. -- JJay 23:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT: Against my better judgement, I've decided to post my thoughts on the whole situation. When I first encountered the article {via a post on WP:RFI), I came across a POV article engaged in a minor content dispute. However, as time progressed (and I attempted to informally mediate), the dispute became more profound. An edit war has insued, reversions are nonstop, and I'm pretty sure the two primary contributors (Avi and Joe Smythe) have both violated the 3RR. But I digress. This article is obviously an outlet for the two of them (and their groupies/sockpuppets) to fight over some internal dispute on their website. The talk page has become very uncivil, and personal attacks are flying from BOTH sides. Now, I won't give my opinions on whether the article should be kept or deleted (I can justify both viewpoints in my head), but I just thought I'd throw some general commentary about these two users into this debate for consideration by others and the closing sysop. At this point, I'm washing my hands of this article and my involvement in it. ^demon^{[yell at me]} /12:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you feel that way, demon. However, I would suggest you check both the article history and IP logs (if you have access) and you will see that nowhere have I reverted anything three times within 24 hours to my knowledge. As for the incivility, yes, I must admit I have been pushed to being somewhat less than absolutely proper, and that may be a personal failing for having a somewhat emotional attachement to an article I spent many hours on; I hope you can understand that human emotion. As for the person(s) who persist on trying to glorify a complete non-issue, all I can say is that if you have spent the months, let alone years, that I have as part of the community in question, your patience with some of their shenanigans would have run thin as well, I believe. Once again, I truly thank you for your efforts to both mediate and help out, and I hope it doesn't sour you from contributing to Wikipedia in that way in the future. -- Avi 13:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.travell.co/

• Delete I admit this is a sock puppet id. I have another account where I regularly contribute to Wikipedia, but given the heated arguments and possible future retribution for my opinion, I prefer to use an alternate id. The site is not that notable to the profession despite the point of view of the author of the article, someone who clearly appears to be emotionally attached to the subject matter and lacking in objectivity. The actuarial community is better served by the true professional web sites of the academy, the two societies and numerous other more notable sites. I do not feel that the article is properly sourced or meets the requirements of a Wikipedia contribution. Anonymous Actuary 19:22, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Notability not established. The NYT article mentions it only as one of many obscure places that contain attempts to write "Fibs", haiku-ish poems with a syllabic structure based on the Fibbonaci_Series. Members of the site should remember that Wikipedia is not generally a place where you write about your own projects. If your community becomes famous, let others write about it. --William Pietri 00:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with statements like it may well be the largest and most dynamic... sounds and reads like an advertisement. JohnM4402 05:38, 25 May 2006 (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.