Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge management

Knowledge management

Advertisement-like essay; irredeemably POV. Alph a x ^τεχ 12:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if the topic is poorly conceptualized it is an important topic. As the world grows more complex and informational overflow becomes a greater problem, knowledge management will become increasingly important. Deleting this page will be like throwing the baby out with the bath water. If the concept is legitimate enough to inspire development of graduate programs, it is legitimate enough to be encyclopedic. Issues concerning lack of objectivity are manageable
Delete and Rewrite. The "we" in "Tacit vs Explicit" smacks of advertisement/copyvio. But, this is a well-known idea (17.3 million Google hits with Google AdWord keywords). I move that the article be rewritten from primary and secondary sources, preferably avoiding the over-cited Mekei website theoryofkm.com. --Mgreenbe 13:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I suggested deletion due to copyright concerns, but I'm fine with any rewrite. --Mgreenbe 16:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve in accordance with Mgreenbe's suggestions Ruby 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and I cleaned it a bit. Yes it looked a lot like a book review for Mekei, but the term is valid and the article contained a core of valid and useful content. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 22:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful article now. Well done to Just zis Guy for cleaning it up. Capitalistroadster 00:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Add references and I'll speedy keep as nominator :) Alph a x ^τεχ 03:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & Rewrite and block any reversion. The old KID & theory section added no value Dgrey 12/02/06
Keep - topic is suitable for encyclopedia even if it does need improved. ChemGardener 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for rewrite. Arbustoo 01:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a rewrite and it could do with a little less heat in what passes for discussion.ALR 21:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but eliminate all the cruft. And can't we please bite the newbies, just this once? —rodii 22:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but try to rewrite to avoid advertising / self promotion Compo 09:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delete the page, I could care less. But I will be deleting everything I've written. This page will have to be rewritten from scratch, because it is 99% my original writings. Capice? As it stands now, the KM definition is pretty useless, so good job at 'improving' the content. In fact, to put an end to this 'discussion' once and for all, because all my references have been removed, I'm taking down all of my content, and I do mean all. DO NOT PUT IT BACK UP, or you will be reported and banned for non-compliance of Wikireferencing. I will not have my work de-referenced.

If you have a problem with that, then write your own material. Stop BOTHERING me with your nonsense. 13/02/06

You can try but you will ultimately fail because you do not own it any more. The banning threat is pretty hollow: good luck in finding an admin who will act on it. Message left at your Talk page. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen, I don't know who you are, nor do I care. But if you continue to leave my work up there without referencing it, you will be banned. That's a promise.

Good luck finding an admin prepared to block me for reverting your WP:OWN violation. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

17:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To JzG, who has removed all my references? You are an ADMIN?? OK, I get it now. So Wikipedia wants non-referenced, non-copyright material. Whoever did this edit, well you know, good effort and all, but it now sucks. Sorry, I'm being objective. The article now sucks, the definition you've written sucks. If it was better than the previous article, I'd be the first to congratulate you. If you think these ideas just fall out of the sky, well that's why there called REFERENCES.

You are incapable of being objective about your own work. Everyone is. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

18:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can't leave up material that has references, but you refuse to reference. Or are you making this up as you go along. So who can I talk about getting you banned, where are the other admins?

I have already posted it to the correct noticeboard, and if you want you can always add {{uncited}} to the top of the article, but actually apart form removing your namechecks most of what is in there counts as common knowledge, could be culled from any IBM Lotus whitepaper in the last ten years. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say.