Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge creation

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 keep, needs serious cleanup. Sr13 04:37, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

An alert editor at WP:COIN identified this article as original research and a conflict of interest. Its content comes exclusively from User:Knowledgemachine, who overturned a prod request. The user page identifies the writer as the same man who is cited in two of the three reference. I don't see how to rewrite the article to a neutral point of view. YechielMan 20:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep Although the current article needs a major clean-up it appears there is material out there.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7]Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 20:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though an academically interesting topic, this is original research written in a very vague and non-academic format. --David Andreas 23:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cleanup. Hacking through all the verbiage and ignoring the sections about other aspects of knowledge processing, the author states that (a) knowledge creation and acceptance is necessary for society to advance, (b) the person who thought it up can keep it to himself/herself or inform somebody else, and (c) the process can be broken down into five (unspecified naturally) steps. Well, duh. Ironically, for an article about knowledge creation, it does preciously little of it. Still, it does seem to be an academic field, so I'm reluctantly changing my vote. Clarityfiend 05:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 05:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Cleanup soon, or otherwise, delete it. Bearian 13:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless major rewriting is done quickly.--SarekOfVulcan 16:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There may be a detail or two which can be added to Knowledge Management, but that looks unlikely. — Athaenara ✉ 04:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and clean-up. Knowledge creation is an important subject, if not to 'knowledge management', at least to the history and philosophy of knowledge (but then is it in a sense so different that it should be another article altogether?). I quote the words of NeniPogarcic in the Talk page on June 26th:

"(...) Polanyi and Nonaka's ideas are widely popularized and accepted. Rightfully or not is a discussion which we can have, but it is probably the most important theory and the widely used one, so therefore it definately should be in it!"

"I think we should revert it to how it was, and elaborate it from there"

So, this is another keep or clean-up that could be added to mine. Robert Daoust 20:58, 26 June 2007 (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.