Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartercard

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. (non-admin closure) Ethically^Yours! 06:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bartercard[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP (WP:CORPDEPTH). I couldn't find any news sources on a Google Search beyond a passing mention in The Guardian (with no details) and that they are the sponsors of some sports clubs, but notability is not inherited from them. No WP:RS for the organisation itself, the two references are merely to legal advice. Edit history seems to indicate significant editing by sources close to the organisation. Si Trew (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is mentioned in the national publication The Australian Financial Review here: http://www.afr.com/p/technology/ato_targets_bitcoin_users_oawpzLQHDz2vEUWtvYLTWI, which makes it noteworthy. If the editing seems biased by the company, then change it; but that doesn't go to whether it is sufficiently noteworthy. 219.90.211.237 (talk) 13:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mention is one sentence: "Paul Drum said that the ATO should be equipped to tackle the risks posed by the new, 'almost fictitious', currency, as it was akin to others it had dealt with in the past. That included the Bartercard popular a decade ago." Similarly, the citation I found in the Guardian is:

Siegle, Lucy (29 December 2013). "Is bartering better?". The Guardian. Retrieved 25 January 2014. "For an idea of scope and scale, look to a system such as Bartercard." (The hyperlink is in the online article.)

Neither of these is "significant coverage", they are each as "passing mention". The "two references to legal advice" I mentioned in the proposal are rulings by the ATO (Australian Tax Office), and a company does not have to be notable to get the ATO's attention.

As for changing it, why would I do that when I believe it should be deleted? If the consensus is to keep it, then I will change it, not while it is open at an XfD. And I didn't say the editing was biased by the company. Si Trew (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Google (especially GNews after the latest "upgrade") does not cover 1990s/early 2000s Australian topics very well due to most of the reliable sources (especially newspapers) having deleted most of their online archives. Fairfax is the exception, but Google doesn't see their archives, you have to use their own search system, and guess what, there is a lot of significant coverage. The-Pope (talk) 13:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good work by The-Pope to show notability.Doctorhawkes (talk) 09:12, 28 January 2014 (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.