Hosta

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Trade In Detectives

Trade In Detectives (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Non-notable website sourced to press releases and passing mentions; fails substantial coverage test. Orange Mike | Talk 12:28, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Needs trimming but the topic passes general notability. It has a number of hits from a custom Google search of vetted video games sources:

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/pre-owned-price-comparison-site-trade-in-detectives-goes-live/0119776

http://www.vg247.com/2013/08/08/new-site-offers-trade-in-price-comparisons-in-the-uk/

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-08-09-uk-game-trade-in-price-comparison-site-launches

http://www.digitalspy.com/gaming/news/a505266/trade-in-comparison-site-launches-in-uk.html#~oSIE7b6bhgxSp7

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-12-03-myth-busting-the-murky-world-of-video-game-trade-ins

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/sep/21/this-weeks-games-news

A bunch of the other sources currently used in the article are unreliable. Don't see any obvious potential merge targets, so keep would be best for now. czar ♔ 01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quite a blatant spamvert, with the usual slew of well-formatted non-references typical of paid-for "articles". All of them including the ones above are based on the same press release which accompanied its launch plus a very brief mention in The Guardian (also coinciding with its launch). There is no evidence whatsoever, of independent in-depth coverage of this company/website. Voceditenore (talk) 07:53, 19 October 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, j⚛e decker^talk 01:44, 22 October 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 02:30, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pure promotionalism, just as Voceditenore says. DGG ( talk ) 09:01, 7 November 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.