Talk:Buy Nothing Project

Response to the rejection message: If something is positive, explain how it can be presented as neutral
There's a lot of crap on wikipedia - this article is not as biassed as it has be libelled, yes, libelled by DGG and others before him/her/it (appearing to be neutral here - it is an option, right?). Please do give concrete evidence/examples rather than blanket statements about the article which are both unscientific and unhelpful. If you want wikipedia to be improved, improve the way the so-called editors/ptb communicate their concerns about draft articles. Thank you. The Buy Nothing Project is a better version of Freecycle (which is featured here - so what is the problem really?) and you may think the project needs wikipedia, but it does not. I'm not speaking on their behalf - I wouldn't have that authority, I just thought it would be a good addition to wikipedia because it is a global movement but if the ptb here would rather have more shallow but apparently neutral topics featured, by all means, go ahead and be obtuse about what this article needs to be given the greenlight - but I would really rather you stop wasting my time with ambiguous claims. have a great day! MissParker (talk) 17:39, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

A couple of tips
I hope this helps. Deb (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Read Identifying_blatant_advertising. Here's an extract: "It describes its company principles, culture, or values in a positive or non-neutral manner." A classic example of this is a sentence like "The Buy Nothing Project fulfills a basic need that transcends geographic boundaries to find better ways to deal with excess...", as is "it is at its core a way to fuel the gift economy and build community".
 * 2) Telling us (twice) that the founders were "inspired" is a typical ploy from contributors wanting to create a positive image of the founders of their company/project/charity.

And some more
I hope this helps. Deb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) Sentences three and four contradict one another - there are no beaches in Nepal. These sentences also need a reference.
 * 2) "...though this is not a stated goal" - nor is it mentioned in the quoted reference, so at present it is the author's personal opinion, which we don't need.Deb (talk) 08:54, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 3) "Persons familiar with ... web-based programmes for keeping items out of landfills, may find similarities inherent between these and the Buy Nothing Project." Personal opinion (as well as poor English).

Your snarkiness shines through
I hope this helps you too. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SocaAmbassadour (talk • contribs) 17:43, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) If you were attempting objectivity, I think you need to work on it.
 * 2) Re your comments. The NYT article does mention money - hence the mention of saving money so if you would really like to help, please suggest possible phrasing that will make the ilk of you happy. But, if you just want to be snarky, at least be factual and pay attention to the references provided.
 * 3) The beach mention is gone, until a reference can be found.

Complete revision
Hi, Curb Safe Charmer. I don't know if you saw my message to the article creator but I've also had a go at revising the page - here. She hasn't replied to me as yet; she's logged out, for some reason. Could you have a look at my draft and see what you think? Deb (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * hi, I've just seen your message as I was half-way towards applying WP:TNT to the draft. Now that I've seen your version, I'll stop, as I think you've already achieved as consise an article as I was hoping to. I suggest you WP:BEBOLD and amend the draft accordingly, rather than keep two separate versions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll wait a few hours to give the creator a chance to respond. If she doesn't, I'll do that. Deb (talk) 16:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Problems with notability
I began to work on improving this article, but I now am feeling that it should be deleted because it fails to meet notability guidelines.

First of all, the Buy Nothing Project (BNP) is not an organization of any kind. Given that, it’s misleading to for the page to have an infobox organization, containing the sorts of facts relevant to an organization. Also, any language implying it is an organization should be deleted.

So, what is the Buy Nothing Project then? Apparently, the BNP just a website run by two people. Most of the content of the website is self-promotional, and it also contains suggested rules about how to run a local Buy Nothing group, and a directory of Facebook groups.

The article refers to it as a "social experiment," but it doesn’t meet any common definition of that phrase. The article also calls it a "network." While the thousands of local Buy Nothing groups  may fit the definition of a network, the Buy Nothing Project  is not a network. According to the BNP website, these groups are fully controlled by local managers, and the BNP plays no leadership role in these groups. It is unknown in what way, if any, these local groups are actually affiliated with the BNP.

Given that the BNP is more of a website than an organization, the Wikipedia standards for notability for web content are most relevant here. The guiding principle is that articles about web sites that could be interpreted as advertising should be avoided. "Wikipedia articles about a person, company or organization are not an extension of their website or other social media marketing efforts." That is exactly what this article represents. It primarily relies on the Buy Nothing Project website and statements from the people who run it as its sources. Also relevant here is "Wikipedia is not here to tell the world about your noble cause".

As I was trying to improve the article, I discovered that many of the references did not support the statements in the article at all. It appeared that someone had indiscriminately peppered the article with references to create the appearance of verifiability. (There are two that remain only because I have been unable to determine the content of the sources.) While these articles were produced by independent sources, they are all human-interest stories, known to be of low reliability. In fact, most (maybe all) of the articles cite the Buy Nothing Project's website or the people who run it as their sources for information on the BNP. So, there is a problem of circular reporting.

The BNP is similar to a number of organizations, such as The Freecycle Network, Freegle, FreeSharing Network, Any Good To You, and Ziilch, in that they are all involved in internet-based free sharing. However, unlike these, the Buy Nothing Project is not any kind of formal organization and does not actually run any freecycling operations. Notably, several of those articles also have problems with verifiability and notability. It might make sense to expand (and perhaps rename) the article on freecycling and mention these various networks there. Another option would be to add a section on local, internet-based free-sharing networks to the gift economy article. In any case, it does not appear that enough reliable, independent sources exist to make the improvements necessary to reach the threshold of notability.

Lagringa (talk) 23:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support. I came to the same conclusion when reviewing the article and after reading down this talk page. Inclusion in an article on ‘freecycling’ or ‘freecycling concept’ would be more appropriateLahti213 (talk) 13:33, 22 January 2022 (UTC)