Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acumen learning


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Acumen learning

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This was marked for speedy deletion.

However, the following argument, which is somewhat persuasive, has been made on the talk page:
 * The Acumen Learning page is intended for encyclopedic purposes and not as an advertisement or promotion of Acumen Learning. If there are steps I can take to make this more clear please educate me.


 * The reason for my argument are as follows:


 * As I've been researching business acumen it became clear that more references on the subject were needed to help others gain a clearer understanding of the term. For example Wikipedia has an undocumented criticism of the term for being a new buzzword. That statement, without any further points of view, could lead readers to a narrowed conclusion. Articles like my published Acumen Learning article help to broaden and deepen a researchers perspective on the subject. For example, my reference to GE goes a long way in helping a researcher decide based on factual references whether business acumen is a new buzzword or if it's establishing itself as an important business term. Likewise, my reference to Google's trends of the term further help a researcher draw their own conclusions. For me, the fact that there are businesses teaching business acumen gives credibility to the term, and yet Google's trends seem to suggest that maybe it is a buzzword since it has become increasingly popular in the media.


 * Further, as I researched other company articles on Wikipedia I don't see much difference between this article and others and I dare say mine is better documented and researched.


 * For example, BTS Group AB gives no references, makes undocumented claims, and is an orphan. I'm not calling for it to be deleted, simply making a comparison and the point that the Acumen Learning article ties business acumen to Franklin Covey, to Ram Charan, to GE, etc. You'd have to share my opinion that my article is attempting something other than just the promotion of a company.


 * Or take Pilot Travel Centers a very similar article but states, "Currently, Pilot Travel Centers is the largest purveyor of over-the-road diesel fuel in the United States." without any type of reference. In fact, there isn't a single reference in the business profile section of this article. Near as I can tell this Article disseminates company information with a few references to acquisitions. If Acumen Learning had acquisitions or other information to share I would be sure to reference them.


 * Please take my points into consideration and allow this page to be published. If there are ongoing concerns about this article please help me understand how I can be more compliant and a credible contributor to Wikipedia. Idutms (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am taking this to AFD for further discussion. Certainly the article is not referenced very well, but that may be fixable. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - There are no reliable soruces covering the company to establish notability. I can find none in my search, and the references in the article either are self-published, or do not mention the company.-- Whpq (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * In an effort to establish notability I referenced conferences that the Founder Kevin Cope has been invited to speak at. ASTD and SHRM are the largest conferences in the training industry and Mr. Cope has been invited multiple times to speak at these engagements. I also looked up speaking engagements and press releases for Mr. Covey and Mr. Charan, the other two partners. While it appears that they have far more notable speaking engagements and press in general, none of it is related to business acumen while Mr. Copes are. Again, one of my primary purposes of submitting this article is to give further insight into business acumen.


 * I'm open to further ideas on how to establish notability. Maybe someone can point out why the articles BTS Group AB and Pilot Travel Centers are notable.Idutms (talk) 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Notability is established by significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. As for other articles, they are not under consideration here, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS explains why. -- Whpq (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I read the Notability article and I can see why the Acumen Leanring article may not meet this requirement. I tried to establish it with links to notable conferences that Mr. Cope has spoken at, but I'll let the community decide whether that's notable. My other case for notability would be the notable individuals involved in Acumen Learning, particularly Charan and Covey. I'm a little torn, but would like to see the Acumen Learning article stay with the hope that notability increase with community efforts. The Acumen Learning article helps establish the notability of other articles, in particular the Business Acumen and Ram Charan articles. And I'd like to see someone write an article on Stephen M.R. Covey, and certainly a reference to the Acumen Learning article would increase that article's notability. Which begs the question, "Are less than ideally notable articles of value to the Wikipedia community if they help to establish the notability of other Wikipedia articles?" Because I can agree that the Acumen Learning article is not ideally notable, but it's certainly not a fabricated article or written solely as an advertisement.

I also read this in the Notability article, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." This struck me as a possible solution since my original purpose was to provide context to the business acumen and Ram Charan articles. I could see a new section in the business acumen article that elaborates on businesses, books, training, etc. that have marketed business acumen based products. But, then it strikes me that in the Ram Charan article you could reference companies that he's associated with and the Acumen Learning reference would link to an article on Business Acumen and not to an article on Acumen Learning, probably not what the researcher was expecting. The question is whether Acumen Learning should stand on it's own or be referenced within multiple articles, and do references from other notable Wikipedia articles make an article notable. For example, let's say that Wilder Farms in Idaho is not at all notable, but someone starts observing that many Wikipedia articles reference Wilder Farms to give context. Could the argument be made that the references to Wilder Farms meets the criteria for being notable and an article on Wilder Farms would be useful? (Wilder Farms is fictional). Just some thoughts, I'd love to get feedback.Idutms (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Reply - Notability is not inherited. Association with notable people does not make for notability.  Being mentioned in other articles on wikipedia does not establish notability. And in your example, Wilder Farms would not be a separate article. -- Whpq (talk) 18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Response. Generally it's not that difficult to establish notability when something is notable. The guidelines of WP:ORG are pretty clear.  In plain English, other people (in no way related to your organisation) need to be talking about you.  And talking a lot.  Further, Wikipedia is not a business directory and linking a business name to articles wn't work unless thereis an "encyclopedic" reason to do so. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete no evidence of notability on the face of it.  I am particularly concerned  with the final reference, a google news search on the phrase "business acumen"--and the use of that very general term as providing evidence that their product "Building Business Acumen" has some notability. Had I encountered this article, I would have deleted it as entirely promotional. Some of the other articles mentioned need some attention, true. They'll get it.  Promotional articles act as a sort of  template for other promotional articles.    DGG ( talk ) 02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unambiguous advertising for a business providing services to other businesses: ...formed ... to model their training after principles found in his book, "What the CEO Wants You To Know". A two day training course was developed to teach business acumen, a term Ram Charan helped to define and champion. Google News finds only routine investment related reports, so it also fails the business notability guideline. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no doubt that the article fails the notability guidelines of WP:ORG, which states that an organisation is notable if "it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."  It goes on to say that "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."  The references provided are primary (generated by the organisation itself) or trivial (don't actually relate to the organisation).  This is actually a candidate for speedy delete, as it could easily be classified as advertising.  Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.