Deletion of Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)

Comment: First of all, the existence of the subject of the article is eminently verifiable per WP:V; the only worthwhile deletion criterion in the nomination is that it fails WP:WEB. I argue that WP:WEB is the wrong guideline to decide the notability of this community. Yes, it is a community with a strong web presence, but as the website itself is not innovative ''as a website'' (it appears to be just a community blog and a vBulletin), the governing guideline should be  (or , if you prefer). Now  is not ratified, but I think the text of the proposed guideline has reasonably wide support. It is clear that the Actuary Outpost is "national or international in scope". The next clause, "information can be verified by a third party source" is more problematic, as most of the article text is from primary sources. Per , a subject can be used as a primary source of information about itself, but such information should ideally be supplemented by secondary and tertiary sources. In my opinion, the text of the Actuary Outpost article should be better sourced and details that are not verifiable from third parties even in principle should be removed, but this criticism is better suited for a |peer review than AfD. (And I heavily encourage the principal authors of this article to put it through a peer review, where I might provide a more thorough criticism
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ORG||WP:COMPANY||WP:RS||WP:PR)

Comment: fails the criterias of . Alexa ranking of http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?url=www.actuarialoutpost.com%2Factuarial_discussion_forum%2F 95, 237
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: The actuary|actuarial community as a whole is not well-known. Most actuaries, students, underwriters, and other insurance personnel will not have Alexa installed on their computers, due to corporate security measures, and violating them is grounds for termination of employment. As such, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Bias in the Alexa test, the Alexa ranking is not really applicable here, because the vast majority of users are not Alexa users. Secondly, per Wikipedia:Search engine test#Google bias, articles that have near nothing to do with pop culture are at a distinct diasadvantage when it comes to the google test. Outside of the small actuarial/insurance community, I am sure most people have not heard of this site. However, in its field, it is eminently notable. Almost every college or university with an actuarial program (at least in the US and Canada) links to this site. The major actuarial societies in the US and Canada link to this site. When exams are released, many more students flock to this site over the CAS and SOA homepages because of the greater robustness of the servers. There are special forums for actuaries and students from all over the world. The authors of the most widely used actuarial study manuals frequent the exam sections of the site, answer student questions, and often base their new errata on comments from students at the site. It has one of the largest listings of actuarial jobs, and job searching advice. Even candidates for office of the SOA and CAS will make statements, engage in debate and dialogue, and campaign on this board, sometimes more than they do on the societies own home pages. It has been discussed in the publications of the societies, such as http://futureactuary.soa.org/soaf/issues/2006-06-05/index.html The Future Actuary -- the publication of the SOA geared to actuarial students and http://casact.org/admissions/futfell/mar06/profile.htm Future Fellows -- the publication of the CAS geared to students. As a credentialed actuary, I believe very strongly that this is one of those rare situations in which the exceptions to  outweigh the general guidelines and that this site is eminently notable in its small field, which is sufficienty notable for wikipedia as a whole
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)