Deletion of IGI Global (2nd nomination)

Comment: This seems like a borderline case to me. IGI Global published 180 journals, and a few of them (I don't know the exact proportion but see e.g. http://www.igi-global.com/journal/international-journal-data-warehousing-mining/1085 and http://www.igi-global.com/journal/journal-global-information-management-jgim/1070) have impact factors, which makes those journals notable. Now  applies to some extent, but here I don't see how the encyclopedia is improved by making IGI Global turn red, so I'm willing to  a little given what's written in the article is good, well supported, and the question "Who is ISI Global?" is I feel something Wikipedia needs to be able to answer
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:INHERIT||WP:IAR)

Comment: Fails  in particular 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:COMPANY||WP:ORGSIG)

Comment: wow this is a great example of .    But I am confused - there was a prior AfD in 2012 that ended with no consensus, but the current article was https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IGI_Global&oldid=736641877 created yesterday.   Was this PRODed or speedied or something
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: Looks like it fails . The sources above might be reliable sources for some things, but I don't think they constitute notability. &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)