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 No consensus. My own inclination for this article would be to delete due to lack of notability: shady companies are a dime a dozen, while honest & reputable ones (sad to say) are a nickle a gross. Businesses should have articles in Wikipedia only if they are famous for their effect on the world -- or for infamous notoriety. However, participants are evenly divided over this article, neither side has made an argument sufficient to overcome all objections to keep or delete, & a closing Admin shouldn't allow her/his own beliefs to misrepresent the outcome of a discussion. -- llywrch (talk) 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge to Action (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Advert for non notable company (well, the non "hyper trimmed one" was anyway). I have various other concerns but they are known to be hyper litiguous (you can probably google for reasons) - let's just say morally, Wikipedia shouldn't legitimise them by pretending they are something important, when, well, they're not Egg Centric 10:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. That the pre-trimmed version may have been an advert is of no relevance - it's only the current version that should be considered here. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: Just to play devil's advocate, would the existence of Google hits that explain how this company is "hyper litiguous" not actually imply notability? And one further thought - it is not the job of Wikipedia to make moral judgments in cases like this. If a company is notable, it's notable, and if it's not, it's not, and that's all we should judge it on - it's not about "legitimising" anything -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  No, there is some moral judgement relevant to Wiki guidelines as I see it, at least on the margin as even the keep voters of this article would agree it is... For example the basic human decency policy or the bio living persons policies. Egg Centric 21:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above notes. However, worth expanding on litigiousness if there are good refs. Bennydigital (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. So far, I can find no reliable independent sources. Of the two checkable (ie online) ones in the article, the wealthexpoasia.com is duff - there isn't even a searchable site there to look for any reference. The other looks like blatant advertorial, in one of the UK's tackiest tabloid newspapers. The non-online sources are a local newspaper, a local magazine, and a London-based business magazine. I think the latter is probably the only one that might satisfy WP:RS, but we have no idea of what it actually says - don't know if it's proper coverage or just a passing mention (and it's not "multiple sources" anyway). I get quite a few Google hits, but everything seems to be self-published, blogs and forums, or sites that promote stock market trading programs. Some coverage by something like the FT, Bloomberg, Investors Chronicle, etc, would be good, but I can't find any. And so far I also haven't found any sources for the company's alleged litigious nature. As it stands, I don't think it satisfies WP:NCORP -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:55, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of independent sources establishing notability. A Google search was very interesting - there are people associated with this organisation who could clearly earn a living giving advice on Search engine optimisation. A fair degree of ingenuity is needed to find sites that have not been created by this organisation or where it is possible to be confident that the contributions have not been placed by it. There is a recognisable pattern which would not occur by chance. The websites which do contain criticism are revealing in various ways. It is impossible to be sure of anything other than the absolute minimum of facts about Knowledge to Action and its founder and there is very little information that we can be confident is provided from a NPOV or has no COI. AJHingston (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on SEO: I mentioned this on ANI when I was trying to get em removed via prod: the creator of the article (and Greg Secker etc) was frankly bloody suspicious (in terms of wiki-competence versus putative experience) - one imagines that someone with the time and knowledge to do so may be able to dig up a wiki editing ring. But I can't prove it and don't really know where to start looking. (Their other edits were to Jordan Belfort, who is indisputably notable, but on the other hand, not exactly the most legit chap (although I recommend "Wolf on Wall Street" as a hilarious read)).Egg Centric 21:11, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, there's enough between the sources for a stub at least when searching google news references. The Scotsman calls them a scam. [1], as does the Scottish Daily Record. [2] Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have to be careful here. It is noticable that The Scotsman is careful not to call them a scam, they are merely quoted in an article that mentions scams, but that is not strictly the same thing, as their libel lawyer will have explained. The Daily Record goes a bit further, but again not something that can be used in Wikipedia. As for being mentioned in national press conferring notability, there is a policy that mere mentions are not enough in themselves. AJHingston (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment in response to said keep and in general First of all I must note my day has been awfully, er, liquid since lunchtime so if this is incoherent nonsense I do apologise - but I doubt it is as I have quite a stamina for this sort of thing. Anyway, I don't see why something being a scam makes it notable... in terms of what they claim to do, bear in mind I'm a trader and the only reason I heard of them is a few weeks ago a friend asked me about them as they were thinking about doign a course and I did a bit of digging... that is to say: if they were really the largest training company I ought to have heard of them. Furthermore, there are no legit training companies that teach someone "to trade" anyway... the legit ones are various subjects and are basically consultancy firms... There are no legit companies who do what this lot do, at best you may get some bucket shop prop idol time thing but that's hardly training... and this lot ain't even that...

So the only way they could be notable is as a scam. Well... if you guys want to adjust the article to be that way, be my guest, and I'll agree with ya - but they will make legal threats, probably. But I doubt they're notable as a scam either, any more than a particualr driver instructor school or time share salesman is.

Egg Centric 21:08, 26 March 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.