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) Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

fails WP:CORP, hardly any indepth coverage. the current article only has 5 references. not much on gnews [1]. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This issue was addressed in the previous AfD. Subscription trade information services are not normally the subject of media articles. Nonetheless, as an information provider, "Fish Information and Services" is referenced 130,000 times in Google. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Geronimo20's and DGG's discussion in the previous AfD that closed a week ago. Gruntler (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It wasn't closed a week ago. It was 53 weeks ago.

  What we have here is an article about an information source. I think information sources that would, themselves, be reliable sources if cited in an article, probably merit some kind of mention on Wikipedia. See WP:SJ -- for example, the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society merits an article on Wikipedia not because it's discussed in reliable sources, but because it is a reliable source in itself.

  Therefore for me, the question is whether Fish Information and Services is a reliable source in itself. Is it peer-reviewed or otherwise carefully fact-checked before publication? If so, we should have an article on it, and if not, I would think not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is referenced a number of times in Google Scholar. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination brings nothing new to the matter per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Important player in the industry. For the amount of information provided, it is well referenced although some more wouldn't hurt. I just put fis.com into Google news and found many results, including some by Terje Engoe, one of the most well known freelance journalists in the industry.--Baina90 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (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.