Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/InfoTrac

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. I am early closing this under our snowball clause justified by Ignore all rules and saving everybody's time as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. "Uncited for nearly a decade" is not a policy based argument for deletion or redirection, and subject's notability ought to be evident by doing a minimum of WP:BEFORE. Thanks for participation to Mrschimpf, MichaelQSchmidt, Coolcaesar, and CoffeeWithMarkets. (non-admin closure) Sam Sailor ^Talk! 16:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

InfoTrac[edit]

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

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

Keep Existed mainly in the pre-Internet age (I remember the old InfoTrac computer at my local library), so caveat that most of the sourcing for the service is probably existing in earlier articles and sources; EBSCO Information Services pretty much has its place in the library market today with EBSCOHost. Nate • (chatter) 02:35, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is very obviously not uncited, so the nomination statement is untrue. Without a better rationale for deletion to respond to it's difficult to have a proper discussion. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per an errant deletion rational that does not argue non-notability, but simply complains that a sourced article is unsourced. Addition sources are spoken of in detail on the article's talk page and a little WP:BEFORE is encouraged before judgments. Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 08:50, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that User:Holypod would even nominate an article on a notable subject supported by citations is highly suspicious. Nearly all properly educated English-speaking North Americans have used InfoTrac at one point in their lives or another, as it has been a staple of well-funded public libraries in North America since the late 1980s (and most of them continue to subscribe to InfoTrac today along with ProQuest and EBSCO). Recommend temporary or indefinite blocks as appropriate if User:Holypod continues to make such spurious nominations based on obvious factual misrepresentations. --Coolcaesar (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps the current article needs a lot of work as well as more citations being placed. That doesn't change the fact that the subject is notable. I'd also like to point out that the service has somewhat recently gone through expansion-related enhancements, so it's not like it's an obscure, defunct product of some kind. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2016 (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.