52:
It isn't that the article was not considered interesting, it's that it didn't meet one of
Knowledge's fundamental requirements. Knowledge does not publish "original research". If you can't find some piece of information already published in some widely-distributed medium, then it is not suitable for
26:
I find the article really interesting, as well as other articles reflecting the organization and work fan cultures can develop when they feel "abandoned" by companies, it is an interest social phenomena with more penetration every year and I can't understand why it is considered not interesting for
61:
35:
17:
43:
54:
39:
31:
8:
57:. Original research is not acceptable for Knowledge, no matter how interesting it is.--
58:
53:
Knowledge. This policy, and the reasons behind it, are explained at
14:
18:Knowledge talk:Articles for deletion
23:
24:
73:
55:Knowledge:No original research
13:
1:
7:
10:
78:
62:23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
48:
34:comment added by
69:
47:
28:
77:
76:
72:
71:
70:
68:
67:
66:
29:
27:general public.
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
75:
65:
64:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
74:
63:
60:
56:
51:
50:
49:
45:
41:
37:
33:
19:
36:85.91.80.130
30:— Preceding
25:
59:Srleffler
44:contribs
32:unsigned
16:<
40:talk
46:)
42:•
38:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.