Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actuarial Outpost (2nd nomination)
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
— [[User talk:Kaustuv|Kaustuv Chaudhuri]], 01:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:ORG||WP:COMPANY||WP:RS||WP:PR (Wikipedia:Notability)