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. Favonian (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Holdings[edit]

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

This nomination also includes the following closely related articles:

The sourcing for these articles consists of a single trivial mention on a member of Parliament's web site, along with incorporation records. None of these sources come close to meeting the general notability guideline. I was not able to find any coverage of this company or its subsidiaries at all on a GNews search, so it appears unlikely that they have received significant third-party coverage in reliable sources. These articles have significant conflict of interest issues as well, and Knight Communications was recently deleted as spam. VQuakr (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Undisputable Facts

As per your note about Knight Communications being deleted as spam. This was simply because I had not formatted the references properly and therefore did not show correctly in the article. By the time I had seen the notification, the article had already been deleted.

As for the statement of no notable sources, nor reliable sources, the Government of England and Whales, as wells the The British Parliament, as well as two different states within the United States Governement have all been cited.

The reason why I placed this here to begin with, was due to a hearing which was held in the House of Lords, where Knight Communications was asked to testify. I was present at this hearing and tried to research the companies on Wikipedia and could not find any mention of them. I then decided to join Wikipedia to add these companies to the Encyclopedia.

I have requested a copy of the article written by the Parliamentary Press on this hearing, but have not yet been given this document. Once I do, it will be cited.

Thank you AKnight2B (talk)

Comment - Per your second point above, records of incorporation from a government web site, while reliable, do not constitute significant coverage. VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

possibly keepthe article Knight Holdings if better sources can be provided , and, if so merge the other 2. there is might be justification for one article on a relatively major firm--there is no justification at all for trying to make three articles out of it. The component company names should be redirected to the main article. Trying to make too many articles when one would do is a rather reliable way of getting them all listed here. DGG ( talk ) 23:00, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis is this a relatively major firm? Per the lack of GNews hits mentioned in the nomination, I had trouble finding anything at all on these companies. VQuakr (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may be right. Amended. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unremarkable companies with no significant coverage plus there's the conflict of interest/self promotion/advertising angle from the article creator. Delete the lot. MikeWazowski (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Confilict of Interest MikeWazowski and VQuakr have both stated this is due to a conflict of interest, yet whenever I have requested of either of them on their Talk pages what the conflict of interest is, neither of them were able to tell me. MikeWazowksi had already deleted this article once without any debate, and without any time whatsoever to discuss the issue. AKnight2B (talk)

Actually, I've not deleted anything, as I'm not an administrator - I did tag it as spam, tho, which an admin apparently agreed with. As for the WP:COI, considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Significance

The Parliamentary hearings just started a couple of weeks ago, and are no due to conclude until the end of this year. The press were present at the first hearing; however, the phone hacking scandal had overrun the media and therefore caused limited publication. However, given Lord Lairds resolve and his strong desire to make a serious change in the UK, I believe this set of hearings shall be something that many a person and press will be extremely interested in researching. As these companies start popping up more and more in the press, I will gladly site the names and articles of the publications in reference and quote form. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:29, 25 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - Virtually nothing on Google except this article, fails Wikipedia:CORP no significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources plus BIG conflict of interest Teapotgeorge^Talk 07:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A set of utterly unremarkable tech businesses. I don't see a claim of minimal importance here, much less historic notability. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Acusation of Conflict of Interest A few points:

I did not create the Articles, I merely added properly formatted references
Yes, My name is Christopher Knight; however, so are about 24million other people in the world (a potential exageration, but I believe it depicts my point)
I AM in Telecom, as are millions of other people in this world (many of them with the name "Christopher Knight")
I have absolutely no conflict of interest in this matter, as I was merely present when this discussion took place in Parliament, and decided to research it more. I found THESE articles, and added the references.
The Articles are not about a person sharing my name, but rather about a company which has recently become of extreme interest to the Government in their discovery as to why people are overcharged for services in the EU
- so AGAIN, please tell me where the conflict of interest comes into play AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:50, 27 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

You did create the Knight Holdings article. You also created the Knight Communications article back on July 14, but that was speedy deleted. A single purpose account (who's never edited again) created Knight Communications, Inc (USA) and Knight Communications, LTD (UK) - I wonder what a sockpuppet investigation would uncover, as that seems a mighty interesting circumstance. As for the WP:COI, (repeating what I posted a few days ago) considering that your username is AKnight2B, and you're doing nothing but creating/editing articles about a Christopher Knight and various companies related to him, your userpage says that you are an "American from New York City, whom now lives in London. I am in telecommunications", you've posted on your talk page that your name is Christopher Knight, just like the Christopher Knight you're writing about - I'd say that the conflict of interest here is pretty damn clear. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sock Puppet

One simle question... Did you actually attempt to contact the individual and do a proper investigation into whether or not your accusations were accurate, prior to accusing and having two accounts locked?? If you look at the person's account whom you are accusing of beeing a sockpuppet, you will see their denial, but guessing they don't know to put the unblock command into their edit in order to attempt to be unblocked.

I have no sock puppet
If it were extremely unlikely for two people who don't know one another to have an interest in the same subject, then Wikipedia would not exist. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AKnight2B, you do have a sockpuppet - the evidence was clear enough that (after an investigation by the appropriate admins with the necessary tools) you were blocked 24 hours for it, and the sock was indefinitely blocked. Please don;t try to play the victim here - you got caught and nailed - end of discussion. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:41, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MikeWazowski

These personal attacks against me have got to stop!!!! I have no idea who you are, all I know is that your incessint lies and manipulation of this system to further your own agenda are in complete contradication to Wikipedia:Civility policy. There has been no proof of any kind submitted other than your allogations which you place on every page and article. The "sockpuppet" investigation does not state that I have one, as I do not. It merely states that it is possible, not different than it being possible that I am the Pope. Please stop your politicing for your own personal satisfaction or gain.
This is a discussion as to the legitamacy of the Knight Articles, not me; therefore, if you would like to continue your personal attacks against me, I suggest you place them on my discussion page (which you apparently keep modifying to your satisfaction) and not on pages about articles.
Please be Civil and Professional!AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:12, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Riiiiiight... you ask me for proof, then get upset and cry foul when I provide that proof. But to the main point of this whole discussion - you've not shown any proof that these companies meet the notability requirements. That alone will guarantee deletion for these pages. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:25, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Proof

I am still waiting for proof, your making a personal accusation against me which noone is able to prove, and I have no idea of how I would even go about disproving, is not proof, it is merely more of your politicing.
Again, this is not a discussion about me, therefore, please stop baiting and harrassing me on this discussion, this discussion is about whether or not the information about Knight Communications is accurate. Which again, I did not create, but merely added properly formatted references. AKnight2B (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]

I suggest you re-read this [1] and stop attacking MikeWazowski who has done nothing untoward. The discussion is NOT about whether the articles are accurate but whether they are notableTeapotgeorge^Talk 22:03, 30 July 2011 (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.