Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Barter Network


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:07, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The Barter Network

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article about a corporation has no 3rd-party sources. It is a recreation of an article created in May 2008 and speedy deleted as an advertisement. No new information has been added. Without sources there is no indication of notability and all of its claims are self-sourced. Postings on the talk page alerted the involved editors of the need for sources two weeks ago, but none have been added.  Will Beback   talk    19:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see any coverage, and thus no notability. Drmies (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Just a thought... did you guys read the wiki, or just saying delete because it was deleted before... i did not see it before when deleted, but looking at this article now, you are stating that it has no 3rd party sources, when i clearly see sources from Barter News, and 2 different chamber of commerces... what else do you want, or what else needs to be put. Let me know as i am sick of seeing peoples hard work to be removed because of WIKI socialist that delete anything that is new, without reviewing them. Troy Stevens (talk)
 * I did read the article, thank you very much, and I did look for sources (and didn't find any, neither in the article nor on the entire World Wide Web). That thing from the Chamber of Commerce, what is that, an ad? And BarterNews, that's hardly a newspaper. I suggest a look at WP:RS. BTW, what a day--first some guy on another AfD calls me a "cocksmoker," and now someone calls me a socialist...at least User Stevens is closer to the truth, even if he fails to realize that socialists are more likely to promote barter systems than to want to delete them. Drmies (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The chamber refrences are not ads rather they appear to be member lists for the chamber that inforces the wiki that the barter netwoprk says they are a member to... 68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete: Fails WP:CORP. Schuym1 (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements. "Content" suspiciously created by a single-purpose editor.  --Born2cycle (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Save: Either you guys missed it, or they just added a source from BarterNews which is a publication confirming their transactions as well as their revenues... I think this article has great benefit to the wiki world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.6.7.179 (talk) 01:04, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That reliable source is not significant coverage. Even if it was, there would need to be multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. Schuym1 (talk) 01:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd thought that was the subject's website. Regardless, it's just a passing reference and not enough to establish notability. See WP:ORG for the notability standards for businesses. Further, the site appears to be a blog, which would make it unacceptable as a source.   Will Beback    talk    03:35, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears to be a blog? A blog would be something that 1 person publishes their opinion on... The page the creater was refrencing to, is a published article that is industry specific. What would be more establishing that that? 68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:11, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A blog and/or one-person website is not considered a reliable source, especially for establishing notability. http://www.barternews.com/ only mentions one person, Bob Meyer. Who else is on the staff?   Will Beback    talk    07:00, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: Refrences are acceptable as they are not blogs as other wiki members are saying... the wiki for the barter network is not biased, and seams to be written correctly as a 3rd party.68.243.236.18 (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * While everyone is welcome to give their opinions, by tradition only the !votes of editors who've made at least 20 or so edits are usually considered. All of the "keep" opinions appear to be from new editors.   Will Beback    talk    07:00, 31 January 2009 (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.