Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Exchange System (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. I can't close this as delete because of the three new sources demonstrating WP:GNG. The editors !voting delete do not indicate they've reviewed the new sources and dispute them. I similarly cannot close keep because the delete !voters have infact commented here after the changes indicating the improvements have no swayed their opinion. I see no consensus for either side. v/r - T P 20:35, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Community Exchange System

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

Unable to identify any significant coverage of this complementary currency network in independent reliable sources. Nothing has changed since the last deletion discussion. ^Bongo_matic 06:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm aware of sources establishing notability, though the generic term used makes them harder to find. I will work to include them in the article. Greenman (talk) 06:39, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could strike your "keep" opinion pending identification of sources. ^Bongo_matic 07:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Community Exchange System, also known as the Talent Exchange, may be unheard of in the West, but is well known in South Africa, especially Cape Town. I've added references from the Mail & Guardian and I know of an article in the Sunday Times, but I can't find this online. I am still seeking sources, though as with many African topics these aren't always easy to find online. Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This system has been specifically mentioned in Time Magazine, is the sole focus of at least two articles in the South Africa national press (and I'm aware of a third but cannot find it online), so it seems to meet notability guidelines, and has been (I think!) significantly improved since its initial nomination. Please be aware that this project is specifically active in Africa, so significant mentions in the local community press would not be found online. I've contacted the administrators to get hold of more references that they may be aware of, and am waiting for this. The first delete "vote" doesn't raise a point, while the second seems to have been addressed. Would the two users like to change their position? Greenman (talk) 11:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 14:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Article is about an online social credit plan. As Aristotle says, "(i)t is true indeed that these and many other things have been invented several times over in the course of ages, or rather times without number...." - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quote from Aristotle, but what's the relevance? :) Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That this plan is just another of many similar enterprises that have been going on for a long time. It may not be individually notable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 06:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there are many similar schemes, so the question is whether this one is notable. I've just been sent scanned copies of press articles by the CES administration, and will go through them to see which are useful. Included in them are articles from the Cape Times and the Times (different media companies), which together with the Mail & Guardian and Business Report/Independent Online reports would be significant coverage. It does appear that the CES is not particularly notable outside of South Africa, but in South Africa with that degree of national press coverage it certainly would be. I will go through the articles to see how significant the mentions are later tonight. Greenman (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Speedy delete in accordance with the G4 criteria. Why are we back here again after three months with nothing to indicate that the issues in the first discussion have been resolved? There remains a lack of significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Cind.amuse (Cindy) 22:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cind., this does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. Greenman (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The G4 criteria calls for the speedy deletion of recreated pages that were previously deleted per a deletion discussion. (check) A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion. (check) The issues in the previous discussion that resulted in deletion remain unaddressed. Please explain how the article does not meet the G4 criteria for speedy deletion. Thanks, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 06:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article has since had references added and is in the process of being improved. The previous deletion discussion had one comment and was hardly a discussion. The issue raised then was that there is no significant coverage about this system in reliable sources, and this is being contested. Greenman (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of the references makes more than a passing reference to the subject. ^Bongo_matic 12:00, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you reading an old version of the entry perhaps? It's the entire focus of the Mail and Guardian article, and the Independent Online article. It's given a passing reference in Time and in the other M&G article, and in the Ashoka reference it's the reason Timothy Jenkin is listed as an Ashoka fellow. Greenman (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but fix up the article. It's a valid subject; and there are people interested in learning about it -- Wikipedia should carry it. Problem is there is too much information in the article outside of the references; so I'd shorten it, add more references, and perhaps add a picture or two.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2011 (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.