Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Management Professional Society


 * 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   no consensus. with no prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) czar   &middot;   &middot;  20:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Knowledge Management Professional Society

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Spammy article with few outside sources. References a CV, another wiki, and some consulting sites. Fails WP:ORG L Faraone  23:00, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Am currently gathering many outside sources references to provide/incorporate -- frankly, I could use some assistance in figuring out exactly what needs to be done and changed on the page to bring it up to standards. Drdan01 (talk) 01:55, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this organization's page is justified under WP:ORG: Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: Non-commercial organizations[edit] "Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple,[1] third-party, independent, reliable sources. Additional considerations are: Factors that have attracted widespread attention: The organization’s longevity, size of membership, major achievements...." Regarding the above, this organization has 120,000 members worldwide (therefore international in scale), and is recognized as the only international in scope knowledge management professional society, and has existed since 2001 (longevity - longer than any other KM association). Regarding LFaraone's above comments, the CV and web site citations were in reference to the named individuals (who are in themselves notables within the knowledge management community) and weren't intended as outside source secondary references for the organization itself. Given the above, I believe that the organization meets the criteria, in the same way that Project_Management_Institute does. I'll work on assembling and documenting the secondary source citations to add to the page. Drdan01 (talk) 11:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * There's no source for those membership numbers. The main issue is there doesn't seem to be any discussion of the subject independant of the organization itself and its members, let alone significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This isn't a judgement on the organization, but is mainly related to whether a reasonable encyclopedia article can be written about it that meets our guidelines. L Faraone  14:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I hear what you're saying but I think that you've misunderstood my above -- I have found those secondary sources, but haven't yet had the chance to make revisions and additions and will get to that shortly. Drdan01 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  03:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  04:03, 2 July 2013 (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.