Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swoopo

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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swoopo

Does not, I believe, meet our current notability standards. Here's why... The Register and the Freaknomics column on the NY Times, both easily WP:RS compliant for tech-related news--check. But--Look closer at the Ayres column used from the NY Times as a source: There's not much material there, and can be arguably called trivial coverage. Look again at the "Reuters" source, here--it's a press release FROM Swoopo. Not RS or of any value for our notability standards. Looking over the article's current other sources at the time of this AFD: Crunchgear doesn't appear to be RS. "Rupert's blog", written by an economics student, doesn't meet RS standards. Metafilter isn't RS (Boing Boing, it's nearest major counterpart, sure, since people source to it in the media, it has notable authors who are often "tech" and new media experts) but Metafilter? It's Slashdot Lite. Coding Horror? Not RS. The rest is all Swoopo-sourced. I think a delete could be in order based on the present sourcing. rootology (C)(T) 04:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Nick-D (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There is the Register, and the possibility that it has a lot of users. Mostly I'd like to see it stay so readers can see how stupid it would be to "bid" there. I like to think our main job is educating readers. NJGW (talk) 05:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though the NYT article is short, I consider it significant coverage. DGG (talk) 05:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a blog post, not an article. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of reputable news sources do blogs that are arguably news sources now--ABC News, CNN, etc. My concern there was the breadth/amount of coverage, not the "blog" label, which is honestly losing most meaning these days in this regard. I'd honestly (and this is as the nom for this) consider Freaknomics a reliable source in general. rootology (C)(T) 06:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wholehartedly agree. Blogs should only be discounted as sources when the author or provenance is unknown. Their relation to the newspaper make it reliable. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I suspect there must be reliable sources given the what the website does. Some consumer group awareness forum?? Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are about 4.5 million results when you google "Swoopo". There are many sites and forums which discuss what they're doing. I believe this makes it notable.
- News articles that discuss Swoopo:
- Although forums don't meet the satisfy criteria for notability, it shows that Swoopo has been receiving quite a lot of attention. There are even websites dedicated to servicing Swoopo customers and enthusiasts: This one is collection of tips and tricks to win Swoopo auctions: http://www.howtowinswoopoauctions.com/ and this one is a site that actually scripts for users generate swoopo clones: http://www.swoopoclone.com/. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 13:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To me at least, this article passes WP:WEB, but just BARELY. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and MgM.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:49, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Arjun. I believe Swoopo has even had TV ad spots but I could be wrong. Kagetto (talk) 17:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A very close scrape past WP:WEB for me, but it seems to achieve it. In my mind it is too close to warrant deletion - defaulting to keep. — neuro^(talk) 13:44, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Anything wrong with this article can be fixed, completely removing it though is not a solution.Everett3 (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Multi million dollar international company that sparks frequent discussion about its business model. This will be the topic of many business school lectures and in case law as lines are drawn between auctions and gambling. This site is getting a lot more attention than what we are seeing with blog coverage. BaShildy (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep NYT gives it push over WP:WEB IMHO Vartanza (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The NYT article, plus the connection to the dollar auction and Martin Shubik, seem to give this company notability. It's true that some web forums are mentioned (like Metafilter) but they are cited only for their opinions, not to support any factual claims. EdJohnston (talk) 22:19, 17 February 2009 (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.