Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dropping knowledge

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 of the debate was delete -- Samir धर्म 04:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dropping knowledge

Promo, advertisement, may or may not be notable; Wikipedia is not a web directory. No vote - I'm just listing this to see if others think this is a candidate for deletion KleenupKrew 02:13, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and cast a delete vote. This looks like a project that may or may not become notable in the future, but notability is not established right now. Wikipedia isn't the place to establish notability. KleenupKrew 11:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may need a fix - but the project is in its nascent phase and is alot like Wikipedia itself- give it a chance. check it out - pretty interesting organization. It will be notable soon enough. [michelemichele 13 June 2006]
- Wikipedia isn't a publicity device. If the organization is "in its nascent phase", it's probably got a while to go before it becomes notable. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems like an interesting organization. However, the article is a blatant advertisement. Notability is not addressed, but it would be a tough sell. Ted 02:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ORG, WP:SPAM, and WP:NEO--☆TBC☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm undecided on whether this deserves an article or not, but the lack of references to the organization suggests that it may not be all that notable. If the article is kept, though, a rewrite will be necessary, as the current revision gave me absolutely no clue what "dropping knowledge" was, besides perhaps "an intercultural platform", "a non-profit organization", or "a global initiative and open-source platform". Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete without prejudice. Notability is uncertain, but it looks like advertising with inherent POV problems. If organisation is notable, I think it would be better to start off with a clean slate than trying to rework the current article. Paddles ^T_C 08:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, advertising. JIP | Talk 12:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but maybe needs a fixer-upper. dropping knowledge, i have determined through sme outside research, is in fact real, and seems to be a culmination of knowledge from around the world. People put forth their information, and questions are answered. HEY! That sounds a lot like Wikipedia!!! Porphyric Hemophiliac § 15:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There are plenty of things which are real, but which still don't belong in an encyclopedia. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The organization seems real and their objective seems nice, but alas, it is not notable. Alexa ranking of 363,880 and 86,500 Google hits, that's few for something web-based. It is not up to Wikipedia to decide what should be notable. JoaoRicardo^talk 17:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article is written in first person, clearly suggesting advertisement (ex: "Where do we get our answers?"). --דניאל - Dantheman531 23:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatantly an advertisement. Sophy's Duckling 00:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.