- 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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Species360 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Very promotional and fails GNG for lack of reliable sources available. Only primary sources are used in the article and no secondary sources can be located.- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 09:14, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- KEEP - try a search for the previous name, "International Species Information System"; plenty of references. This organization is a mainstay of zoo animal record keeping worldwide, and has been for many years.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, yes, a Gbook search for the previous name, "International Species Information System", yields a wealth of coverage, and would meet both criteria of WP:NGO. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In the strongest possible way, as organization meets WP:NGO, and a repository of recordkeeping for zoos as stated before. RickinBaltimore (talk) 16:55, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. No secondary sources? I added one a few days ago, describing the organisation as "a highly credibile source of information from the zoological community for use by international conventions and regulatory bodies." +mt 19:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently this is a software company operating as a non-profit. But they make money too for operating costs, and employees typically get paid out of overhead. Those software listings look promotional to me, as does one line in the first par. If this weren't a non-profit there'd be screams of advertising and marketing. Are non-profits exempt from that guideline? If not then I suggest tweaking those parts that deal with the software.--J. M. Pearson (talk) 21:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Notable organization. Article text needs work, but content and notability are two different issues. Montanabw(talk) 03:27, 7 November 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.