Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DaruDar

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 delete. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 23:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DaruDar[edit]

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

Unremarkable Russian web content entirely written by the owner of the subject matter. There is not even an article about this on the Russian Wikipedia which would imply that it is not notable. A quick Google search reveals no English information about this website whatsoever apart from a small social media presence. UKWikiGuy (talk) 12:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been written in a promotional style. It contains direct citations from the subject's website, as well as musings irrelevant for most readers, and it has no references to independent sources.

However, Google search reveals hundreds and hundreds of articles, videos, and blog posts about the subject in Russian. It has been featured on national TV of Russia and Ukraine, as well as in notable newspapers and magazines. It's clear that it represents an interesting social phenomenon. While it seems that there is no much news on the subject in English, it deserves to stay in English-language Wikipedia because the social movement of which it's a big part of transcends borders and gains popularity. (Darudar's website is available in English too.)

Within the next weeks, I will edit the article to make it concise and relevant to an English-speaking audience.

Vladimir Frolov (talk) 07:41, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are millions of websites that do similar things. The fact that it is one of them does not make it notable to an English audience. The subject matter has had zero impact on the English speaking world and, in fact, is based on other people's work. UKWikiGuy (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see after I write a new draft. The project is different from the millions of give-away websites in some very interesting ways. It has a very tight international (albeit, only Russian-speaking) community. Compared to most of the other websites which are locally focused, it has a much greater share of things sent to other places. People have introduced such innovations as collective parcels, volunteer postmen and couriers to aid sending gifts to distant locations. It's concept is different from "giving-away" in that people ought to communicate openly why they need what they ask, and the giver chooses the person who would benefit most.

Somebody knowledgeable in the area of sharing economy and collaborative consumption should take a look at the project. Any single Wikipedia article needs not to be interesting and useful to each and every reader. It deserves to be in Wikipedia if its contents is important and insightful to a portion of users who can make something of the information. Therefore, we should seek for an independent expert opinion on whether the subject is worthy of inclusion. I've been traveling intensively, and had no time to do any writing for the past days. I'll post the first draft in a week. Vladimir Frolov (talk) 13:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL doesn't seem to turn up anything looking much like WP:RS. -- Trevj (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ‑Scottywong | babble _ 17:49, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Translating the Russian language citations, this is a Russian version of Freecycle that may belong in the Russian Wikipedia if it meets notability there. It isn't at all notable in English, As stated by Vladimir Frolov above, it is only for the Russian speaking community. Not notable enough to be included in the En Wikipedia. DocTree (talk) 01:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOENG, the language isn't relevant. If it's notable, it's notable AIUI. -- Trevj (talk) 14:59, 10 May 2012 (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.