Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignorance management


 * 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. B music  ian  04:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ignorance management

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Clear neologism. JoelWhy (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Rewrite and Keep per WP:NEO. A rather obvious, self admitted neologism at that. No third party sources exist to verify any sort of notability.
 * Changing vote per explanation below. Rorshacma (talk) 17:31, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Several third party sources exist, see my post below. Northamerica1000(talk) 17:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Having read the article cited, it is clear that Ignorance Management is a novel and alternative approach to Knowledge Management; hence, I don’t see any use of neologism as you have noted. The definition provided as well as the content of the article is exactly same with the source provided. By proposing to delete this article, you are preventing the release of information (including new definitions/concepts) which is useful to many academics and practitioners within the field of Knowledge Management and generally improving the encyclopedia. However, if you think that there is a more appropriate way to incorporate the contents of this theory, please feel free to make any suggestions.
 * Comment- Please read the above mentioned Wikipedia policy on neologisms at WP:NEO to get a better idea of what we're dealing with here. Particularly, the parts where it states that neologisms, even those that may already be in wide use, are not ready for a Wikipedia article until there are multiple secondary sources that talk about the term, rather than just using it. Of the three non-first party sources included, one of them does not speak of the actual phrase at all.  And while I can't actually see the text of the two books sourced, the fact that this particular phrase is explicitly stated to be defined in this way in April 2012, and the books were published years ago, leads me to believe that they are not talking about the term as was defined by Israilidis, Lock, and Cook.  Rorshacma (talk) 16:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment The purpose of Wikipedia is not to "release...new definitions/concepts" which may be useful to academics. This is an encyclopedia, not a professional journal. Information is added after it becomes notable, not so that it will serve to hopefully spread knowledge of an as-yet-not-notable concept.JoelWhy (talk) 20:28, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe this article falls within the Wikipedia content guidelines. Ignorance Management is increasingly recognised as an important concept within the field of KM and deserves an entry here. It is substantiated by empirical research and published papers. It is important (IMO) that Wikipedia is current and the primary source for understanding the world about us. As such, ommitting a potentially important concept like this would be a mistake.- WP:AVOIDCOI louise5258
 * CommentLouise, you are one of the authors of this article, correct? And, I take it, Yannis05 is also connected to you and/or the article in some respect as well, is that correct?JoelWhy (talk) 12:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – the topic passes WP:GNG, per sources in the article, and per:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 17:37, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, as I said above, the opening of the article claims that the term was defined by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock in 2012. Which would mean that either the sources, which were written years before, are not speaking of the same concept, or, more likely, the article needs to be rewritten to make clear that this is not the origin of the concept.  The way the first half of the article is written now gives the false impression that this is a newly created term that was invented by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock, which seems to not be the case.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just copy-edited the article to address this concern. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nice work on that so far. I might further suggest that we actually take out the seperate section labeled as "Israilidis, Lock and Cooke description", and just integrate the information from their paper in with the rest of the information that's currently in the "Research" section.  Otherwise, it seems to give the sense of undue weight to a single work on a concept that is clearly older and more widespread.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I agree with you Rorshacma - however I do not think that an integration would be appropriate. I suggest we create a 'Definition' section instead - it is important for the reader to actually see what this concept is about. If there are more definitions of the concept, I'd suggest that we put them all in this section - Yannis05   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannis05 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Well, as I said above, the opening of the article claims that the term was defined by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock in 2012. Which would mean that either the sources, which were written years before, are not speaking of the same concept, or, more likely, the article needs to be rewritten to make clear that this is not the origin of the concept.  The way the first half of the article is written now gives the false impression that this is a newly created term that was invented by Israilidis, Cook, and Lock, which seems to not be the case.  Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - I just copy-edited the article to address this concern. Northamerica1000(talk) 18:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Nice work on that so far. I might further suggest that we actually take out the seperate section labeled as "Israilidis, Lock and Cooke description", and just integrate the information from their paper in with the rest of the information that's currently in the "Research" section.  Otherwise, it seems to give the sense of undue weight to a single work on a concept that is clearly older and more widespread.  Rorshacma (talk) 03:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Yes, I agree with you Rorshacma - however I do not think that an integration would be appropriate. I suggest we create a 'Definition' section instead - it is important for the reader to actually see what this concept is about. If there are more definitions of the concept, I'd suggest that we put them all in this section - Yannis05   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yannis05 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Dear users, First of all many thanks for your contributions. Having read numerous articles articles on Knowledge Management and also worked extensively in this area, I believe that this article is credible and worth to read. When I initially wrote this article I had no intention to make it a neologism - I was purely interested in the nature of the topic. However after reading your comments, I tried to modify it accordingly, so please feel free to look at the modified versions - in the meantime other users have also added more edits too. I strongly believe that this is a significant contribution to the encyclopedia; this is also illustrated by the multiple relevant sources cited. In the past I have used Wikipedia to look up various theories as well as different explanations of terms - and to be honest, this article is no exception to this. Anyway the last thing I want to say at this point is that before taking the final decision to delete this article I would appreciate if you could suggest any comments/changes to improve this entry. Undoubtedly, this theory is very remarkable and widely talked about. Hope we can all find a solution on this and look forward to reading your suggestions. Yannis05


 * CommentIf we're satisfied with the current version, I'm fine with keeping.JoelWhy (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 14:02, 26 April 2012 (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.