Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SwapSimple
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep. howcheng {chat} 17:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nn website. Nn Alexa rank. No major media coverage. Fails WP:WEB. Created by User:SwapSimple. -- Perfecto 05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -- Perfecto 05:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Please revert this promotional edit as well. -- Perfecto 05:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I protest on the basis that this entry meets standards defined in WP:WEB point 1, if you refer to independant media articles cited below: --SwapSimple 12:11am, 14 January 2006 (CST)
- The Pioneer Press - "Trio turn new page in textbook buying" August 11, 2005
- The Utne Reader - "The low(er) cost of learning" July & August, 2005
- American Association of State Colleges and Universities "Lifting the weight of college textbook costs" March, 2005
- and many more articles found here.
- additional WBBM Chicago (CBS affiliate) interview to be taped this month.
- The Pioneer Press - "Trio turn new page in textbook buying" August 11, 2005
- SwapSimple is an entirely unique peer-to-peer trading concept, making a dramatically positive difference in the lives of students across the United States, and it deserves it's place in the Wikipedia, just as Peerflix, Netfilx, and the like do. SwapSimple's trading concept was developed in 2003, and began providing service in late 2004.
- This is a book exchange company. Okay, actually book-and-other-stuff, but it's a company. The right inclusion standard is probably WP:CORP. I see no evidence that it meets that standard either. Despite the claim above, I can find nothing "unique" about their business model. Press releases and local news articles announcing the mere existence of the company do not provide sufficient independent converage to verify the article or to ensure that the content is unbiased. Incidentally, a google search turns up a mere 77 unique hits. Delete unless substantially more evidence of notability is presented. Rossami (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep - meets criterion 1 of WP:CORP -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 10:18, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please provide your evidence? I looked and couldn't find anything. Rossami (talk) 14:51, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep as per Thesquire, and evidence above. Mushintalk 18:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep FYI - all the press coverage of SwapSimple was unsolicited. Just today I (Elliot Hirsch, President, SwapSimple, Inc.) was contacted by the Boston University Free Press for an interview regarding SwapSimple. Also, as mentioned above, the Utne Reader - a large national magazine, chose to write about us in one of their columns because they believe in what we are doing, and understand that we are only in the beginning phases of development. I believe that the value of this encyclopedia would be greatly diminished if you only allow mentions of businesses who are "large" and well known. That would be a very boring, biased, and narrow view of the world. We have already helped hundreds of students afford the textbooks they need for their educations. Because we have not yet helped thousands or millions - does that still diminish the benefit to those who have used the service - or somehow mean that we simply do not exist? --SwapSimple 2:15pm, 14 January 2006 (CST)
- I understand it's frustrating to spend time and effort on an article that you believe should be on wikipedia, only for it to be listed for deletion. However, please be aware that you cannot argue wikipedia's current accepted policies on the notability of companies here, as it won't help your case. There have already been a majority of keep votes (including mine), not because we disagree with the policy, but because we believe your company is indeed notable enough to stay on wikipedia. Mushintalk 14:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - I understand your point. Also, thank you for your support. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. --SwapSimple 2:12pm, 15 January 2006 (CST)
- No problem. It looks like the consensus is to keep the article anyway so you shouldn't worry. On another note, I have edited the article slightly to give it a more neutral point of view - please see WP:NPOV for more info. Mushintalk 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you - I understand your point. Also, thank you for your support. I guess we'll just have to see what happens. --SwapSimple 2:12pm, 15 January 2006 (CST)
- I understand it's frustrating to spend time and effort on an article that you believe should be on wikipedia, only for it to be listed for deletion. However, please be aware that you cannot argue wikipedia's current accepted policies on the notability of companies here, as it won't help your case. There have already been a majority of keep votes (including mine), not because we disagree with the policy, but because we believe your company is indeed notable enough to stay on wikipedia. Mushintalk 14:43, 15 January 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.