Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public sector knowledge 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 no consensus - knowledge management is a nebulous concept, to put it mildly, and to justify the deletion of articles like these needs a much clearer consensus over whether the British Standards Institutions 2004 Report is enough to base an article like this on. This AfD should not prejudice future attempts to gain clearer consensus. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Public sector knowledge management


Looks like WP:OR. Previously prodded but tag removed, so AfD. Hawaiian717 22:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Its genuine, although the article needs badly tidied up, linked and referenced properly. scope_creep 23:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the entire article reads as an op-ed piece or a pitch. I would say to merge the referenced material into the main knowledge management article, but absolutely none of the actual content is referenced (only a handful of cites to stats).  The topic itself does not seem terribly distinct from the parent topic to begin with.  If someone would like to specifically reference (per WP:RS) all of the opinion based material, or to rebuild it as a stub, I'm sure I'd change my mind.  Kuru  talk  00:40, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, the article if focused on a view of KM in the British Government at a specific point in time. It could be a article headed "The BSI report on ...."  but I am not sure what added value that provides.  The BSI report is itself a discussion piece, does not represent a formal BSI position not is its contents subject to concensus--Snowded 02:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the author of the original page. I have edited it to make clear that the arguments are those which can be found in the published British Standards Institutions 2004 Report "Knowledge Management in the Public Sector", which meets Kuru's concerns fully.  The rationale for having it as a separate page in the Wikipedia rather then under the general knowledge management page is precisely addressed by the BSI Report in its preamble, which I have added.

This is

"The understanding and practice of Knowledge Management has been growing rapidly throughout the public sector over recent years. Yet a constant comment from existing and nascent public sector KM practitioners has been that, until now, most of the analytical literature concerning Knowledge Management has sought to understand and explain it within a mainly private-sector context.  There has not been a single, easy-to-digest national study that objectively and specifically analysed the growth of KM in the public sector and thereby set out the evidence-based public sector context within which Knowledge Management can add value to the work of public servants. The British Standards Institution, through this Guide to Good Practice, has sought to plug this important gap."


 * Keep Dave Snowden is a good colleague of mine, but he is not accurate when he says the BSI Report is not an agreed position. The Report was debated and agreed by consensus of the BSI committee which drew up the Report.  Dave has a particular view which is and was not the consensus view of the rest of the members of the BSI Committee.  It is more accurate to say that it was not a unanimous view, because Dave was not in full agreement, but if we only published documents which had unanimous views with no dissenters, then there would not be much on the site at all.  This is an official and agreed BSI Guide to Good Practice and published under the BSI's authority and with its full agreement.  Of course, Dave is more than free to add some comments to the article, but simply deleting the whole article would deny the Wikipedia community access to a good and thorough piece of research carried out in conjunction with the Warwick Business School.

--Joe McCrea 16:53, 8 November 2006 (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.