Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Must


 * 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) 05:11, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge Must

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Article was created by an WP:SPA account with no other edits other than related to "Knowledge Must".

Has a few links but they seem to be blogs, press releases and trivial coverage or mentions. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered.Seems to be nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT.

This is one Part of a long history of Spam and promotion on Wikipedia, see also -

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm sure I've mentioned this to the nominator before: it's difficult to take any deletion nomination seriously when it is presented with random underlining, italics and bold text that mimic the presentation of the very spammers that he/she is obsessed with fighting. Phil Bridger (talk) 00:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this is probably okay. The Wormser Zeitung article is entirely about the organization and its managing director, which certainly goes beyond the level of "trivial or incidental coverage".  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Comment significant improvement should be made in secondary sources for this page. Very "slick" web site, by the way.

From WP:CORP ..........An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. ''All content must be verifiable. If no independent, third-party, reliable sources can be found on a topic, then Wikipedia should not have an article on it.''

--Warrior777 14:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warrior777 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment off topic ....... What's up with the signature function? It seems to be having issues. Warrior777 —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 10 December 2010 (UTC).
 * Delete, advertising. This organisation provides intercultural solutions - oh, that.  Apparently some kind of exchange student for profit business, although they can't seem to bring themselves to say so. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Whose Your Guy (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, the nom incorrectly says that the sources are all blogs, press releases, and trivial mentions. However, there is a long newspaper article entirely about the organization.  Do you really agree with the nom that a long newspaper article is a bad source?  (Or did you only look at the English-language sources?)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the only language I understand is English, that's the only route I can take. Having one newspaper article for coverage is not enough to pass WP:GNG in my book.  Blogs cannot be used unless they are self-published (from what I understand of that section). Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Have you ever tried one of the free online translating services? They're not perfect, but they are good enough in this case—and both WP:NONENG and WP:N explicitly allow non-English sources on the same level as English sources.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:21, 15 December 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.