Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition

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 per WP:SNOW. J.delanoy ^gabs _adds 00:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition[edit]

Original research lacking content. In my opinion lacks hope of inclusion. Please note the article in question is "Knowledge Based/Knowledge Acquisition," not Knowledge Acquisition. BCST2001 (talk) 00:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly incomprehensible. The creator should work on improving Knowledge acquisition and Knowledge Acquisition and Documentation Structuring (actually, the latter should probably be merged to the former). There are also the articles Knowledge-based systems, Knowledge base, and Knowledge Management. Knowledge based system is a redirect to Expert system, but the title with the hyphen isn't. The whole topic is a mess. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is very tempting to consider {{db-nonsense}}, since it is so hard to figure out what is the topic. If there were any sources at all, somebody could look at the sources to determine what the topic is. EdJohnston (talk) 01:52, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deletingly delete this meaningless conceptual concept. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:24, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More jargon swallowing its own tail, telling nothing. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and see Talk:Michel_Foucault#RichardLord_edits for an explanation of another edit the user has made - they want to 'express new material' via Wikipedia, so it's original research. Esteffect (talk) 13:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this "newly formed conceptual (a neologism concept) concept which most certainly requires more work on its exact definition and working area." The article itself contains the rationale for deletion. --N Shar (talk · contribs) 22:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism couched in complete bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO and WP:V, it reads like complete gibberish. Basement12 (T.C) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: this is an unverified neologism. Cliff smith ^talk 17:24, 29 August 2008 (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.