Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Management Professional Society (2nd nomination)

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:28, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Management Professional Society

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG. Previously nominated about five years ago, no consensus and no improvement in available references. Very weak references -- almost all are dead links. Official website no longer exists. I couldn't find any information about this organization at all. -- Mikeblas (talk) 08:42, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:35, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 22:27, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There does appear to be something at the organisation's website address, though it is blocked with a malware flag when I attempt to access it. I agree with the nominator's rationale. Dead links are not in themselves evidence that an organisation was never notable, but in this case the claim to uniqueness seems dubious, as does the number of members, and the strong source necessary for verification is wanting. I've tried searching on a couple of occasions during this AfD without finding something substantial. It therefore seems to me to fail WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 16:50, 9 September 2018 (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.