- 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. Courcelles 00:21, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Part exchange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has nothing to do with "part exchange". Part exchange does not "refers to the swapping or bartering or exchange of goods or services". It refers to a discount when giving up your old item when buying a new one. This is done mostly in the car trade. Anyway, the rest of the article is mostly unencyclopaedic content with POV phrases such as "So successful is" and "given a whole new lease of life". "Part exchange" would be better as a Wiktionary definition, not an article here. 91.85.135.167 (talk) 11:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this is not my AFD, I am submitting in good faith for IP. tedder (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 18:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to reposting a sourced article. This is an encyclopaedic topic (although one I think would fit better in barter), but there's far too many unsourced statements open to dispute, and this particular article doesn't seem to have anything worth preserving. And picking one company which offers a part exchange service is very dodgy. Should someone wish to rescue this article in mid-AfD, I will reconsider. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Keep. Yet again we have calls for deletion, rather than editing, of an imperfect article on an obviously notable subject. User:Jonathan de Boyne Pollard has demonstrated that there is no need to delete this article before embarking on improvement. I would suggest that the nominator and seconder check the current state of the article and reconsider their positions. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Change to keep now that the article has been rescued. I maintain that when there's nothing in article of encyclopedic value, and it would require a considerable amount of work to put any meaningful article in its place, deletion is a valid option, because I don't see why other editors should expected to do the work instead. But since someone's voluntarily chosen to work on this, it's a moot point. Good job with the rescue. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 19:30, 15 December 2010 (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.