Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bureau of Trade


 * 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   redirect to List of acquisitions by eBay. Salvio Let's talk about it! 09:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Bureau of Trade

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spam really. The "New York Times" source is their blog, which isn't reliable. Looks like COI editing, also adding the "founder" article. Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124; WER  21:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Meets WP:WEBCRIT Comment: (sources) per, , , , (short article),  (very short article). Additionally, the NYT source is an acceptable WP:NEWSBLOG source for Wikipedia's purposes. NorthAmerica1000 12:53, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Their blog is fine (sometimes) to source an individual fact, but not to establish notability. Additionally, this blurb was written by Lydia Dishman, whose whole NYT blog career  is a few fluffy, cheerleading posts under the "fashion" moniker.  Clearly insufficient to establish notability and of dubious use for other purposes.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:27, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Dennis Brown: at WP:IRS it states, "Some news outlets host interactive columns they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the news outlet's full editorial control." At the end of the paragraph it then links to WP:NEWSBLOG. Therefore, I perceive the NYT source as an acceptable reliable source to establish notability. NorthAmerica1000 11:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I know the policy, blogs can sometimes be an exception for sourcing, which is different than establishing notability. And you take them on a case by case basis.  As I've shown, this is a very weak case for even sourcing facts, but under any circumstance it doesn't demonstrate notability.  Even unreliable sources can sometimes be used to source non-contentious facts but the standard for establishing notability is higher than for sourcing trivial facts.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  11:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * One matter, though, is that your notions here are not stated anywhere in WP:N. Regardless, I appreciate your opinion. NorthAmerica1000 12:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is vaguely touched upon in WP:CONTEXTMATTERS. Not all "reliability" is the same.  Just as a primary source is fine to source a date of birth or their religion but not to prove notability.  Weak sources are ok for non-contentious sourcing, but in this case, "notability" is contentious, so it requires higher quality sourcing.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  13:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:WEBCRIT does not mean mere mentions like in the house egging report.  Fails WP:GNG,  probably not even worth a redirect to eBay. --Bejnar (talk) 13:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete (changing to Redirect, see below) Does not meet WP:CORP. Trivial outside reporting about funding and acquisition; nothing substantial about the company itself. Not worth redirecting to eBay, where it has not been considered important enough to mention under acquisitions. Could have been redirected to the founder except that he is not notable either and is up for deletion as well. --MelanieN (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi User:MelanieN: Did you view the 11-paragraph newsblog article from The New York Times ? NorthAmerica1000 11:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I did. I share Dennis's skepticism about this source, and in any case, notability requires MULTIPLE significant coverage. --MelanieN (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Merge to the Acquisitions section of the eBay article. Upon consideration, this may not quite qualify for a standalone article. I've modified my !vote above to a comment. NorthAmerica1000 14:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge as per Northamerica. (Actually Dennis Brown has identified a better redirect target.) That's a reasonable approach. --MelanieN (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to be argumentative, but there is literally nothing to merge. That section is blank and instead points (via "main article") to List of acquisitions by eBay, which already has a full entry on this.  I can see deleting and then redirecting to List of acquisitions by eBay but not a merge.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  19:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That section isn't blank; it has subsections about four major acquisitions. That's what I was looking at when I dismissed this article as "not having been considered important enough to mention under acquisitions". I didn't see that there is a separate list. This article is already mentioned on that list (not exactly a "full entry", but probably all this is worth). In that case, a Redirect to the List of acquisitions by eBay would be appropriate. But there is no need to delete the article before redirecting; it's not like it contains damaging BLP or copyvio or anything like that. It's just non-notable. --MelanieN (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I stand corrected. I wouldn't expect it to be one of the major sections, but instead in the lesser article, but that would be an editorial decision at that article, not here.  Dennis Brown &#124; 2¢ &#124;  WER  21:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of acquisitions by eBay. Modified my !vote above. Upon even further consideration, this is a relatively minor acquisition compared to other eBay acquisitions. NorthAmerica1000 09:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * 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.