Talk:KE Software

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedily deleted for lack of asserted importance because the company is important as a specialist provider of software for cataloguing museum collections and archives. It has been described as ''...the world’s leading provider of Collections Management systems and services for natural history museums, cultural history museums, art museums, herbaria, botanic gardens, archives and special collections. The company’s clients include the three largest museums in the world.'' would it be reasonable to put such a quote in the article? I have added a bit about its role in museum collection management which I think would show its significance. --Garyvines (talk) 03:54, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a credible claim of notability, though whether or not this actually makes the company notable is still open to debate. This is something that would have to be resolved by AFD. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 15:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Collections Trust Suppliers Directory
The material presented in this source is information provided by the supplier for marketing purposes. Hardly a reliable third-party source. The Dissident Aggressor 00:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

notability
I have added an up-front statement of notability and additional independent sources to support this - see refs 7 and 8.Garyvines (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Maintenance Tag removed
I removed the maintenance tags as there are now several links to the page so it is no longer and orphan, while the first comment above demonstrates notability.Garyvines (talk) 01:05, 6 January 2023 (UTC)