367:
Covey. I'm a little torn, but would like to see the Acumen
Learning article stay with the hope that notability increase with community efforts. The Acumen Learning article helps establish the notability of other articles, in particular the Business Acumen and Ram Charan articles. And I'd like to see someone write an article on Stephen M.R. Covey, and certainly a reference to the Acumen Learning article would increase that article's notability. Which begs the question, "Are less than ideally notable articles of value to the Knowledge (XXG) community if they help to establish the notability of other Knowledge (XXG) articles?" Because I can agree that the Acumen Learning article is not ideally notable, but it's certainly not a fabricated article or written solely as an advertisement.
211:
of view, could lead readers to a narrowed conclusion. Articles like my published Acumen
Learning article help to broaden and deepen a researchers perspective on the subject. For example, my reference to GE goes a long way in helping a researcher decide based on factual references whether business acumen is a new buzzword or if it's establishing itself as an important business term. Likewise, my reference to Google's trends of the term further help a researcher draw their own conclusions. For me, the fact that there are businesses teaching business acumen gives credibility to the term, and yet Google's trends seem to suggest that maybe it is a buzzword since it has become increasingly popular in the media.
385:
be referenced within multiple articles, and do references from other notable
Knowledge (XXG) articles make an article notable. For example, let's say that Wilder Farms in Idaho is not at all notable, but someone starts observing that many Knowledge (XXG) articles reference Wilder Farms to give context. Could the argument be made that the references to Wilder Farms meets the criteria for being notable and an article on Wilder Farms would be useful? (Wilder Farms is fictional). Just some thoughts, I'd love to get feedback.
478:
no evidence of notability on the face of it. I am particularly concerned with the final reference, a google news search on the phrase "business acumen"--and the use of that very general term as providing evidence that their product "Building
Business Acumen" has some notability. Had I encountered
384:
article you could reference companies that he's associated with and the Acumen
Learning reference would link to an article on Business Acumen and not to an article on Acumen Learning, probably not what the researcher was expecting. The question is whether Acumen Learning should stand on it's own or
210:
As I've been researching business acumen it became clear that more references on the subject were needed to help others gain a clearer understanding of the term. For example
Knowledge (XXG) has an undocumented criticism of the term for being a new buzzword. That statement, without any further points
366:
article may not meet this requirement. I tried to establish it with links to notable conferences that Mr. Cope has spoken at, but I'll let the community decide whether that's notable. My other case for notability would be the notable individuals involved in Acumen
Learning, particularly Charan and
302:
are the largest conferences in the training industry and Mr. Cope has been invited multiple times to speak at these engagements. I also looked up speaking engagements and press releases for Mr. Covey and Mr. Charan, the other two partners. While it appears that they have far more notable speaking
370:
I also read this in the
Notability article, "If appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, consider merging the article's content into a broader article providing context." This struck me as a possible solution since my original purpose was to provide context to the
235:
a very similar article but states, "Currently, Pilot Travel
Centers is the largest purveyor of over-the-road diesel fuel in the United States." without any type of reference. In fact, there isn't a single reference in the business profile section of this article. Near as I can tell this Article
430:
are pretty clear. In plain
English, other people (in no way related to your organisation) need to be talking about you. And talking a lot. Further, Knowledge (XXG) is not a business directory and linking a business name to articles wn't work unless thereis an "encyclopedic" reason to do so.
225:
gives no references, makes undocumented claims, and is an orphan. I'm not calling for it to be deleted, simply making a comparison and the point that the Acumen Learning article ties business acumen to Franklin Covey, to Ram Charan, to GE, etc. You'd have to share my opinion that my article is
241:
Please take my points into consideration and allow this page to be published. If there are ongoing concerns about this article please help me understand how I can be more compliant and a credible contributor to Knowledge (XXG).
479:
this article, I would have deleted it as entirely promotional. Some of the other articles mentioned need some attention, true. They'll get it. Promotional articles act as a sort of template for other promotional articles.
534:...formed ... to model their training after principles found in his book, "What the CEO Wants You To Know". A two day training course was developed to teach business acumen, a term Ram Charan helped to define and champion.
407:. Association with notable people does not make for notability. Being mentioned in other articles on wikipedia does not establish notability. And in your example, Wilder Farms would not be a separate article. --
162:
379:
articles. I could see a new section in the business acumen article that elaborates on businesses, books, training, etc. that have marketed business acumen based products. But, then it strikes me that in the
303:
engagements and press in general, none of it is related to business acumen while Mr. Copes are. Again, one of my primary purposes of submitting this article is to give further insight into business acumen.
278:- There are no reliable soruces covering the company to establish notability. I can find none in my search, and the references in the article either are self-published, or do not mention the company.--
200:
The Acumen Learning page is intended for encyclopedic purposes and not as an advertisement or promotion of Acumen Learning. If there are steps I can take to make this more clear please educate me.
216:
Further, as I researched other company articles on Knowledge (XXG) I don't see much difference between this article and others and I dare say mine is better documented and researched.
117:
236:
disseminates company information with a few references to acquisitions. If Acumen Learning had acquisitions or other information to share I would be sure to reference them.
500:
156:
569:
The references provided are primary (generated by the organisation itself) or trivial (don't actually relate to the organisation). This is actually a candidate for
122:
90:
85:
94:
17:
77:
177:
260:
I am taking this to AFD for further discussion. Certainly the article is not referenced very well, but that may be fixable.
144:
342:
294:
In an effort to establish notability I referenced conferences that the Founder Kevin Cope has been invited to speak at.
597:
36:
578:
436:
138:
596:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
567:"trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability."
582:
549:
515:
490:
467:
440:
416:
394:
354:
325:
287:
269:
251:
134:
59:
426:. Generally it's not that difficult to establish notability when something is notable. The guidelines of
81:
404:
574:
432:
308:
I'm open to further ideas on how to establish notability. Maybe someone can point out why the articles
184:
529:
363:
313:
265:
232:
73:
65:
170:
450:
309:
222:
463:
386:
317:
243:
341:
independent of the subject. As for other articles, they are not under consideration here, and
196:
However, the following argument, which is somewhat persuasive, has been made on the talk page:
511:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
563:"it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources."
537:
150:
545:
390:
321:
261:
247:
558:
525:
427:
372:
337:
412:
350:
283:
55:
331:
486:
459:
507:
111:
541:
536:
Google News finds only routine investment related reports, so it also fails the
381:
376:
408:
346:
279:
50:
557:. There is no doubt that the article fails the notability guidelines of
481:
453:
to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
590:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
299:
295:
226:
attempting something other than just the promotion of a company.
107:
103:
99:
169:
573:, as it could easily be classified as advertising.
362:
I read the Notability article and I can see why the
458:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
183:
561:, which states that an organisation is notable if
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
600:). No further edits should be made to this page.
530:business providing services to other businesses
501:list of Business-related deletion discussions
8:
495:
335:is established by significant coverage in
205:The reason for my argument are as follows:
499:: This debate has been included in the
193:This was marked for speedy deletion.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
583:22:40, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
550:15:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
538:business notability guideline
516:15:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
491:02:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
468:01:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
441:22:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
60:04:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
417:18:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
395:16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
355:00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
326:23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
288:18:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
270:22:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
252:23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
617:
593:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
565:It goes on to say that
526:Unambiguous advertising
403:- Notability is not
314:Pilot Travel Centers
233:Pilot Travel Centers
343:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
44:The result was
518:
504:
470:
345:explains why. --
608:
595:
575:Wikipeterproject
505:
457:
455:
433:Wikipeterproject
338:reliable sources
188:
187:
173:
125:
115:
97:
34:
616:
615:
611:
610:
609:
607:
606:
605:
604:
598:deletion review
591:
542:Smerdis of Tlön
448:
373:business acumen
364:Acumen Leanring
266:Ta bu shi da yu
130:
121:
88:
74:Acumen learning
72:
69:
66:Acumen learning
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
614:
612:
603:
602:
586:
585:
552:
519:
493:
472:
471:
456:
445:
444:
443:
420:
419:
360:
359:
358:
357:
305:
304:
291:
290:
257:
255:
254:
238:
237:
228:
227:
218:
217:
213:
212:
207:
206:
202:
201:
191:
190:
127:
123:AfD statistics
68:
63:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
613:
601:
599:
594:
588:
587:
584:
580:
576:
572:
571:speedy delete
568:
564:
560:
556:
553:
551:
547:
543:
539:
535:
531:
527:
523:
520:
517:
513:
509:
502:
498:
494:
492:
488:
484:
483:
477:
474:
473:
469:
465:
461:
454:
452:
447:
446:
442:
438:
434:
429:
425:
422:
421:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
399:
398:
397:
396:
392:
388:
383:
378:
374:
368:
365:
356:
352:
348:
344:
340:
339:
334:
333:
329:
328:
327:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
306:
301:
297:
293:
292:
289:
285:
281:
277:
274:
273:
272:
271:
267:
263:
258:
253:
249:
245:
240:
239:
234:
230:
229:
224:
221:For example,
220:
219:
215:
214:
209:
208:
204:
203:
199:
198:
197:
194:
186:
182:
179:
176:
172:
168:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
136:
133:
132:Find sources:
128:
124:
119:
113:
109:
105:
101:
96:
92:
87:
83:
79:
75:
71:
70:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
592:
589:
570:
566:
562:
554:
533:
521:
496:
480:
475:
449:
423:
400:
369:
361:
336:
330:
316:are notable.
310:BTS Group AB
275:
259:
256:
223:BTS Group AB
195:
192:
180:
174:
166:
159:
153:
147:
141:
131:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
157:free images
382:Ram Charan
377:Ram Charan
332:Notability
264:(formerly
508:• Gene93k
405:inherited
460:Tim Song
451:Relisted
424:Response
231:Or take
118:View log
163:WP refs
151:scholar
91:protect
86:history
559:WP:ORG
555:Delete
528:for a
522:Delete
476:Delete
428:WP:ORG
387:Idutms
318:Idutms
276:Delete
244:Idutms
135:Google
95:delete
46:delete
487:talk
401:Reply
312:and
262:Tbsdy
178:JSTOR
139:books
112:views
104:watch
100:links
16:<
579:talk
546:talk
540:. -
512:talk
497:Note
464:talk
437:talk
413:talk
409:Whpq
391:talk
375:and
351:talk
347:Whpq
322:talk
300:SHRM
298:and
296:ASTD
284:talk
280:Whpq
248:talk
171:FENS
145:news
108:logs
82:talk
78:edit
56:talk
51:Cirt
524:.
506:--
482:DGG
268:)
185:TWL
120:•
116:– (
581:)
548:)
532::
514:)
503:.
489:)
466:)
439:)
415:)
393:)
353:)
324:)
286:)
250:)
165:)
110:|
106:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
84:|
80:|
58:)
48:.
577:(
544:(
510:(
485:(
462:(
435:(
411:(
389:(
349:(
320:(
282:(
246:(
189:)
181:·
175:·
167:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
142:·
137:(
129:(
126:)
114:)
76:(
54:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.