- 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. ✗ plicit 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
KnowledgeBase Manager Pro
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- KnowledgeBase Manager Pro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been both a spam magnet and a deletion magnet. What it has never been is a source magnet. While it does not appear to still be in production, it did in the internet era and should have better sourcing. This appears to be the best one and it's not clear whether it was independent and definitely isn't in depth. Star Mississippi 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
- Delete: The passing mention in a brief 2009 TMCnet article about Knowledge Management may have been sufficient to make the 2010 PROD inappropriate but is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability and searches are not finding better. No article about the vendor web-site-scripts so no WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. ✗ plicit 03:42, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
KnowledgeBase Manager Pro
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- KnowledgeBase Manager Pro ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article has been both a spam magnet and a deletion magnet. What it has never been is a source magnet. While it does not appear to still be in production, it did in the internet era and should have better sourcing. This appears to be the best one and it's not clear whether it was independent and definitely isn't in depth. Star Mississippi 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Star Mississippi 03:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion
- Delete: The passing mention in a brief 2009 TMCnet article about Knowledge Management may have been sufficient to make the 2010 PROD inappropriate but is insufficient to demonstrate attained notability and searches are not finding better. No article about the vendor web-site-scripts so no WP:ATD redirect target. AllyD ( talk) 09:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
- Delete: does not meet WP:NSOFT; sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:29, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
- 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.