Deletion of Fish Information and Services (2nd nomination)

Comment: the website does not meet the notability criteria at  or .  The external sites included in the references are only passing mentions and do not meet the criterion that ''The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself'' - for example the library of Congress citation ''http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/03Aug/RL30856.pdf Congressional Research Service - The Library of Congress '' states in realtion to this site Fish Info Service A, F. A Japanese-based information resource reporting on fishery, processing, and aquaculture industries world-wide, Fish Info Service offers a broad range of international news that is frequently updated at http://www.fis.com/fis/worldnews/. Although news headlines and brief stories are available on this site, access to the full text of news items requires a paid subscription. Fis.com is one of many sites they list and is given no more emphasis than many others.  To my mind this reference falls within the exclusion of ''Trivial coverage, such as ... (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores. ''  The other references are similar. I am very surprised that a business that has been around since 1995 could be so under-reported.  If I look at the site, it would look to be important - fishing is a major industry and this may well be a major player in that industry. '''But''' if it were important then I would assume it would have references to support that notability - I have searched diligently and I can't find any
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CORP||WP:WEB)

Comment: Regardless of the notability of the subject, this discussion is really about whether or not the first AfD was closed properly - that is discounting the susupected sockpuppet votes. That discussion (regarding the propriety of the original close) belongs at |DRV, not back here at AfD. If the original closing admin has already discounted the socks when determining that there was no consesnsus, then the default action is to keep and we should not be having this discussion. If the socks were not taken into account when reaching that determination, then this is a debate about the closing and is properly handled at DRV. Either way, without some kind of intervening act, a second AfD after three days is inappropriate
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:DRV)

Comment: lack of non-trivial independent sources, , spam, and sockpuppetry - a combination almost invariably absent where subjects are genuinely notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment: I agree that is a useful reliable source with content that could be usefully added to the article.  I appreciate I am now a little bit jaded with the whole debate but ...  I am not sure actually if the reliable source confirms notability to either  or  standards - it is not significant coverage in more than one source - we need a couple of sources.  I note that the source provided states ''FIS so far has had only a few profitable months, but added that his company is "very close to achieving profitability." ''  To me lack of profitability is kind of an indicator of lack of notability - not entirely fair and outside the guideline but
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CORP)

Comment: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q=%22Fish+Information+and+Services%22 Numerous citations in Google Scholar.  This seems to be a case of |trout rather than spam
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)