Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KnowledgeTree (2nd nomination)


 * 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. There were some sources discovered during the course of the AfD, but those sources didn't gain any traction convincing the other discussants.

There's a suggestion that even if the company is not notable, their products might be. But, there was no significant discussion on that, so whether an article could be written about the product remains an open question. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

KnowledgeTree
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An amazing example how we have changed since 2009, we unfortunately have to use AfD instead as I frankly would've PRODed myself, my searches have noticeably found nothing better as the current sources are nowhere near convincing; simply not the needed substance. SwisterTwister  talk  05:11, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  SwisterTwister   talk  05:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:35, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete -- sorry, still reads like an advertorial about the company's history and products. Does not meet CORPDEPTH in my view. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:59, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added better content with a couple of more sources, including a couple of CEO interviews, and removed anything that could be considered advertising. The article has gone from being nominated for deletion due to being advertorial and weakly sourced with three items to better with nine, and less advertorial.  I read WP:CORPDEPTH and don't think any of these sources are routine, brief, passing or simple references.  Please clarify your interpretation(s) so I know what you are referring to.  The whole article now comes from this independent media coverage.Timtempleton (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This would still not enough as the coversge itself is simply about either their funding and financing, relocating and other usual business activities such as interviews, none of it is substantial. SwisterTwister   talk  22:46, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Most of the things you mention - funding, interviews, financing, etc. - are what usually makes a business notable. I agree that the relocation to the historic building is more notable for nearby residents familiar with the sign, but I'll leave it in.  Being listed as a top ten vendor in the SaaS space and an emerging vendor to watch by two different noted tech pubs suggest this is a refimprove candidate rather than a delete, but let's see what others think.Timtempleton (talk) 23:52, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I will simply note that several other AfDs have noted that while a considerable amount of such coverage could be notable and acceptable, it's still not convincing enough for notability as that's also simply information about its activities and there has been consensus showing this is also advert-like such as for enticing investors and clients. SwisterTwister   talk  00:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hopefully I purged the advert stuff - I don't like that any more than you do. I cringed when I viewed the first version of this article from almost ten years ago, written by the founder no less.  Since none of the sources I used existed then, it would have almost certainly been immediately speedily deleted.Timtempleton (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the article is currently neutrally worded which is an improvement. But the sources remain weak and the coverage does not raise to the level of CORPDEPTH. There are also trivial industry awards, and funding and product news, i.e. WP:ROUTINE.
 * However, I'm seeing discussions on the product in Google books, such as [Sarbanes-Oxley IT Compliance Using Open Source Tools by Christian B Lahti, Roderick Peterson and Adaptable and Adaptive Hypermedia Systems edited by Sherry Y. Chen, George D. Magoulas, among others. So it looks to me that the product may be notable, while the company is not. Edit: some of what comes up in Google Books may not be about this company / product (i.e. eLearning environment, my last link), But the SOX content is about the subject since it includes the URL of the company. It appears that they refocused on sales & marketing content in the recent years, vs general document management. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2016 (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.