Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge angels


 * 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) 00:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge angels

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This term is not being used by anyone outside the group that coined it - I can find no independent secondary sources that discuss it, the only source I can find is a simple definition. Wikipedia is not for listing non-notable neologisms. (challenged prod) Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable neologism. EeepEeep (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nominator, I can't find any independent sources for the term. Knowledge intensive business services are mentioned frequently, but that article doesn't mention it either - nor is it a reasonable merge candidate, I believe. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 21:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism. Looks like an attempt to promote this research.    Glenfarclas   ( talk ) 21:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: non-notable neologism, and the tissue of glittering generalities makes it look like coatrack spam as well: knowledge angel is used for depicting those people in information industries who are the most expert, understand innovations in their sector. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * ""Do not delete"" - added references to Globe and Mail and Canadian Business who coined the term in 2000/2001 + blog post on EcoBusiness Angels (in French) and (Queen University's page). I do not think this could qualify as "coatrack spam" : I thought there was a policy on contempt and uselessly harsh wording in these pages but apparently not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gustaveaime (talk • contribs) 18:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)  — Gustaveaime (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * 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.