Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KnowHow NonProfit

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. Mkativerata (talk) 19:45, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KnowHow NonProfit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable website, article is written like an advertisement. Fails WP:WEB. All sources that can be found are either primary, myspace/facebook/twitter, or regurgitated press releases. No significant coverage in secondary sources, fails WP:GNG. SnottyWong ^yak 23:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of it seems to be lifted from the company's website. Not a promotional SPA, though, but still a good Delete candidate. Raymie Humbert (t • c) 01:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.
• Delete. Painfully blatant advertising: created to improve the efficiency of non profit organisations by increasing the knowledge and skills of people working in the non-profit sector – especially those that are new to training or come from 'hard-to-reach' groups. The portfolio of knowledge sharing resources provides expert content for those working in the third sector on anything from fundraising to managing volunteeers in organisations. If this has been copied from its website, this might be speediable as a copyvio. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:42, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Coverage isn't up to scratch here, as the nom correctly explained. Alzarian16 (talk) 11:25, 19 August 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.