Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information Today


 * 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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Information Today

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Promotional article. Cited only to primary-sourced directory information - no RS coverage. A WP:BEFORE shows no third-party RS coverage of the company that I could find - plenty of uses of the words "information today" and several other companies of the same name. I could be wrong, but it would be need to be shown with clear third-party RS coverage meeting WP:CORPDEPTH. They should be notable per the large claims - but we have nothing to base an article on. Article tagged since 2018 without improvement; no reasonable prospect of organic improvement. PROD removed without addressing issues. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep major and mainstream publisher of several notable publications. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * cool, do we have any independent RS coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 16:50, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, here's one . &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:06, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * That's better than nothing! I will note that an article based on a single interview would be very short - David Gerard (talk) 11:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Unfortunately an interview isn't good enough for it to pass WP:CORPDEPTH and I couldn't find anything else myself that would. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: The source indicated by Headbomb is reliable. I also found a few more reliable sources which talk about the company:, , and . That said, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP.  ASTIG😎  (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 15:00, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 *  Very weak keep. Here are some bits and pieces:, , , . I'm amused to be here because of this edit I just made, where I found an Information Today publication useful for publishing-related info (not an argument, obvi). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:37, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Woops, didn't look closely enough at Superastig's find. A full-length article in Library Journal looks good. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * keep We have an interview and an article in an academic publication, which is more than nothing and passes WP:GNG with 2 sources. More sources would be better. In the case of publishers and publications which are themselves WP:Reliable sources used to back other Wikipedia articles with citations, I think we should accept fewer sources than typical even if it means a more bare article. I do not think we quite have a guideline for trade journals like this, but we do have Notability (academic journals) which makes a similar case for academic journals.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  18:46, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.