Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swap.com (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 keep. Olaf Davis (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Swap.com

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

Swap.com is out of business and irrelevant in the history of the Internet, as Swap.com never took off beyond some initial start-up press. The company is now owned by someone completely different and is a children's consignment operation. Highly recommend a deletion. Ethanwa (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 19:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks the broad coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found these sources: [1], [2], [3]. I think I could be able to find more. → Call me Hahc21 18:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Found more: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. I think those are enough to show it meets GNG. → Call me Hahc21 18:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of those are press releases and warmed-over press releases. --j⚛e decker ^talk 00:28, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I just added them because they have some info that can be used. I did not do an extensive search though. → Call me Hahc21 02:30, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:55, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of those sources are press releases or self published in some form, but I did see some that looked relatively secondary and independent.LM2000 (talk) 21:07, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the significant coverage found by Hahc21 (talk · contribs). See this article titled "Swap.com's New Scan App Makes Trading Stuff Easy" from Mashable and this article from The Boston Globe titled "After spending more than $11 million, Boston-based Swap.com acquired by Finnish startup for undisclosed amount" for two examples of substantial coverage. See also this article from the Boston Herald titled "Barter Web site aims to be ‘eBay of swap’". The online article is only three short paragraphs, but it is likely longer with the rest of the article hidden behind a paywall. (The page says "The article you requested has been archived" at the bottom.) This is sufficient coverage to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 04:05, 22 March 2014 (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.