Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SilverPlatter

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 17:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SilverPlatter

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

Completely unsourced for nearly a decade. Holypod (talk) 02:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lemongirl942 (talk) 07:39, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's had a source since January 2007. I'll grant that the sources are still mostly not cited inline and still mostly not third-party, but "completely unsourced" is, charitably, flatly untrue. —Cryptic 03:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 20:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insufficient sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:46, 15 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete I searched for independent third party references and found nothing. RockyMtChai (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This was an important pioneer in the history of electronic information services. Lots of sources are apparent in the HighBeam and GScholar searches linked above, and even if many of them are of questionable independence, examples of sources that could be used to support an article include several pages from this book about "Infonomics", a lengthy 1991 article from Information Today, and a news analysis about the 2001 sale to Wolters Kluwer/Ovid Technologies. --Arxiloxos (talk) 21:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, important electronic info provider, there should be plenty of references.Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Keep – The topic meets WP:CORPDEPTH. Source examples include, but are not limited to those listed below. Also note that per WP:NEXIST, topic notability is based upon source availability, rather than the state of sourcing in articles. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

Challenges of Academic Library Management in Developing Countries. pp. 86–87.
Information Today (subscription required)
Program. pp. 169 - 175. (subscription required)
Library Hi Tech. pp.49-60. (subscription required)
CD-ROM Professional. pp. 12-13.
Infonomics and the Business of Free. p. 22, p. 23.

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.