Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Generation Bureau

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The result was nomination withdrawn by nominator. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:06, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge Generation Bureau

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources do not indicate sufficient notability. Promotional. Various implausible redirects such as "Комитет государственной безопасности" have been created, indicating a deliberate effort to generate as much traffic on the page as possible through search engine crawlers. Cs32en Talk to me 17:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects in question were created by a malfunctioning bot. I just reverted its actions. — Rankiri (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! However, given this and similar edits, I don't think we should blame the bot. Cs32en Talk to me 19:40, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Aside from Bot problems identified by Rankiri, the company does not seem to be notable on its own (some of their products may be more notable if we could eventually find citations, but that's for separate articles). I agree with the original nomination.Mattnad (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Please, when nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Google News^[1][2] immediately shows a number of WP:RS sources—including a lengthy review from TIME—that cover the subject in detail. As for WP:PROMOTION concerns, I don't think that the problem is so serious it can't be solved through less drastic methods.

http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1874375,00.html

http://durangoherald.com/sections/Features/Southwest_Life/2010/01/10/Special_agents_answer_questions_about_everything/

http://www.gadling.com/2009/01/23/product-review-knowlege-generation-bureau-kgb/

http://hamptonroads.com/2009/09/textmessage-answer-man

http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=98228

http://www.620wtmj.com/news/local/45359222.html — Rankiri (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have first added a PROD template to the article. The template was deleted without any significant changes to the article's content. The article needs to be based on sources such as those that you have given. I don't have any particular interest in this company, so I don't think it's my job to find the sources and to rewrite the article. Instead of looking for sources, the editors of the article have spent their time trying to associate it with the Russian KGB. If this changes, the article will probably be kept. Cs32en Talk to me 20:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Does it hurt to do some basic research before nominating for deletion? As seen above plenty of sources for the company, the company has a major national advertising campaign (featuring Kirk from Gilmore Girls, which is quite amusing), and I'm not seeing an overriding promotional bent to the article besides a basic clear explanation of the service. I would suggest however that the article be renamed as KGB.com or KGB (service) with this title (used as sub-branding) retained as a redirect as "KGB" is the more used branding. Nate • (chatter) 20:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer you kept it as far away from KGB as possible. There was already a page-move fiasco when someone decided that KGB should be an entry about Knowledge Generation Bureau, not about the Soviet intelligence service. Those waters don't need to be muddied again. Hairhorn (talk) 22:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep If someone is disruptively trying to drive traffic to a company's Wikipedia page, that can and should be dealt with, but deleting the company's article due to that is silly, and akin to throwing out the baby with the bathwater (even though it usually irritates me when people use that phrase, it's pretty apt here). The notability concern seems plausible since there aren't really any independent sources in the article; but I have to think some must be available, if only due to the substantial advertising campaign (which included a super bowl commercial). For now I think the article should be kept and tagged for its notability issue. I'd have trouble endorsing deletion of a company that everyone's heard of; I think that's the spirit of the notability policy, even if not "to the letter". Edit: Didn't notice Rankiri's comment above. It appears independent sources do exist, so changing to plain keep. Equazcion ^(talk) 01:29, 25 Jan 2010 (UTC)
Withdraw I am withdrawing this request for the deletion discussion. I would like to thank Rankiri for finding sources for the article, and I would like to encourage the editors who are working on the article to actually use these sources. It's not sufficient that an article can potentially be sourced properly, the sources need to be used in the article, and independent secondary sources should be used in preference to self-published sources. I hope that the editors who are working on the article will spend more time sourcing the article properly, rather than constructing infoboxes, quarreling over the addition of "alternative services", moving the page etc. Cs32en Talk to me 01:45, 25 January 2010 (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.