Talk:PaperBackSwap
Add topic | This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
g11 for PaperBackSwap
[edit]Seems like advertising to me also. MidgleyDJ 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe there may be a fine line between "advertising" and "informing". I fail to see how BookCrossing can have a Wikipedia article but PaperBackSwap cannot. PaperBackSwap has been reported on by National Public Radio, PC Magazine, Atlanta Journal Constitution, The Staten Island Advance, WHDH-TV (Boston), WZZM 13 (Grand Rapids), The Press (Atlantic City), USA Today, CBS News, The Christian Science Monitor, Boston Globe, Standard-Examiner, Georgia Magazine, Buffalo News, The Kim Komando Show, and most recently, The New York Times. All these entities seek paid advertisers; PaperBackSwap did not pay to be published.
Virtual Libraries are a new phenomenon deserving of mention in the people's encyclopedia. As the forerunner in its field, PaperBackSwap is the logical choice. Having said that, I am not averse to performing a re-write, but I could use some tips on what is perceived as "blatant advertising" rather than "impartial reporting". Thanks! ReinaRuth 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I concur. LibraryThing and BookMooch also have articles, and I think this is a similarly relevant article. --JaimeLesMaths (talk|edits) 08:44, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
DISPUTE OF SUGGESTION TO MERGE -- I disagree with the suggestion that this article be merged with book swapping. Other similar entities (BookMooch and LibraryThing) with less validity (by whatever method one measures validity -- time in existence/number of members/current inventory) have their own entries on Wikipedia. These entities are not just footnotes to a general concept of book swapping any more than Amazon.com and E-bay are footnotes to Electronic Commerce. ReinaRuth 17:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree that if BookCrossing and BookMooch each have their own articles then Paperbackswap should also. If none of them did, I would say keep it under Book swapping, but since individual articles have been written, I say keep it separate. Mazeface 23:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
SwapaCD and SwapaDVD
[edit]These are sites owned by the same people. They should get an article or have their own section here. Superstarwarsfan (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)