Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)

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 speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW, given the lack of arguments made in favor of deletion; WP:BEFORE does not seem to have been consulted and would be a a useful reference in the future. — Earwig ^talk 23:56, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Engine (Wikimedia Foundation)

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

Since this is an active Wikimedia project this would be a conflict of interest to edit this page. It should be redirected to https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Discovery as this is the project page. Much like we don't have an article on meta we should not have an article on this. Mrfrobinson (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as having an invalid deletion rationale. There is no prohibition here on writing about Wikimedia projects, as long as they are based on reliable sources that cover the subject in-depth and are published independently of Wikimedia, as this one is; the sources give it a pass of WP:GNG. The suggested cross-namespace redirect would be a bad idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:36, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Plenty of press coverage already, so easily passes WP:GNG. As David Eppstein states, no valid rationale for deletion has been given. Edwardx (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Looks like a well sourced article and POV differences are being worked out on the article's talk page. "Wikipedia cannot give greater prominence to an agenda than experts or reliable sources in the Real World have given it; the failure to understand this fundamental precept is at the root of most problems with advocacy on Wikipedia." -- WP:ADVOCACY 009o9 (talk) 00:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Pinguinn (🐧) 02:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid nom, passes GNG. --Regards, James(^talk/_contribs) 05:32, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: Invalid reason for deletion, article clearly passes GNG. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Per above. Philafrenzy (talk) 11:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment; really, this is what we are keeping ? Navel-gaze much we do </yoda> ... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alright, yes, I see the criticism that it's navel-gazing, but that doesn't invalidate the independent coverage in reliable sources. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the time being, although it may be appropriate in a years' time to consider merging this with another article, e.g. Wikimedia Foundation. (By then, either it will have been terminated & become a footnote in WMF history, or have become one of their major projects.) -- llywrch (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Call for snow close

Per WP:SNOW. This AfD does not have a snowball's chance in hell of resulting in a deletion. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2016 (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.