Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reed Business Information

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. Jenks24 (talk) 11:14, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reed Business Information

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

Topic fails WP:CORP in that reliable, secondary sources contain only trivial and/or incidental coverage of this organization. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I trust that the closing administrator will assign appropriate weight to comments that actually address the criteria for Notability vs. those that do not. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is clearly a notable company. Article should be improved with more citations, not deleted. A P Monblat (talk) 14:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Subsidiary of a company with 30000 employees. AfD has no role here. Unscintillating (talk) 03:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I suggest discussion of reliable source material or redirect targets
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 06:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While hardly a slam dunk, I think I see enough coverage such as this, from what seems to be to be a reliable industry newsblog, to pass GNG. But it's not an overwhelming case, from what I see from Gnews. Keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep -- see sample coverage: discussing M&A activities; "Reed Business Information faces scrutiny over sanctions", FT.com. The latter article includes the following:

Reed Business Information faces scrutiny over sanctions. MAY 1, 2014 by: Cynthia O’Murchu and Melissa Hancock. UK authorities have been probing past transactions between a division of Anglo-Dutch publisher Reed Elsevier and Iranian banks, to consider whether sanctions may have been breached. (...) RBI and US-based Accuity – which its parent Reed Elsevier acquired at the end of 2011 – operate together as Accuity and sell databases such as Bankers Almanac. That database allows clients to find and validate bank payment routing data and share their own payment information."

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable. Article needs improving to include more references. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 5 March 2017 (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.