Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trade In Detectives (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 delete. Unanimous consensus to delete, but salting seems excessive (and not really supported by consensus). If this goes through another recreate/delete cycle, that will be the time to consider salting. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Trade In Detectives
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Recreation of a deleted article with no substantial new coverage. I actually thought this eked by in 2014—it had significant coverage from vetted video games sources—but was informed that my standards were too low. The only sources remain as they are now: mostly clumped around the site's launch and slightly more promotional in nature than even your average games journalism. (My list of sources is at the previous AfD.) There have been no major changes since, but the article has been recreated anyway. I see no worthwhile redirect targets, either. – czar   04:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 06:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. &mdash;&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·E·C) 02:25, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge the couple sentences of reliable content into comparison shopping per WP:NOTEWORTHY and WP:PRESERVE, where it will be easier to keep an eye on (preference#1), or delete and salt with fire (preference#2) as sockpuppet-created-spam in blatant violation of the 2014 AfD consensus about the somewhat-'manufactured'-sources on which the original article was based. Either way, strongly suggest that somebody with the technical skills and the appropriate admin-bits create an abuse filter (tag-but-not-disallow) that will raise an alert whenever the names of the founders of Rubber Road and their spin-off Trade In Detectives are inserted into mainspace, since besides those two legal entities, they have at least three or four more corporations, further noting that they sometimes use shorter nicknames and sometimes use their full legal names.  Cannot remain a dedicated article in my opinion, despite technically passing WP:GNG; topic fails to truly demonstrate WP:N, because sources are all from the narrow Aug'13-Dec'13 range, and are all English-language videogame-related-press (which makes sense since site only offers comparison-shop for UK retailers and only for videgame-related-items).  That constitutes a single burst of regional coverage per WP:NSOFT essay, see also WP:PERSISTENCE notability-guideline.  No new WP:RS to be found, in the additional 19 months since Aug'13-Dec'13 that the business has been around; narrow-scope and narrow-timeframe coverage only lasted the first four months after official-biz-launch.  Still qualifies as WP:NOTEWORTHY obviously, but given the circumstances, I understand why folks might lean towards straight deletion, as a future-spam-deterrent-mechanism.  Thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 19:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Salt fire? Sounds scary – czar   19:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- While I know little of the subject, the article seems largely a promotional ADVERT. As a re-creation, it should probably be salted to prevent it reappearing.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. The page has been previously AfD'd and it resulted in deletion. The current references do not prove notability for video games.  Ana  r  chyte   10:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above, particularly 75.108.94.227. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:41, 4 August 2015 (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.