Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge services

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 delete. Sr 13 05:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge services

I believe this article represents original research that is not sufficiently supported within the larger community; the article itself says that Knowledge services can represent "virtual anything" and are "ambiguity squared", which if this is the case, makes the rest of the text here unnecessary and unhelpful Abc378 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The first paragraph in the body of the article was original research, so I cut it; the balance of the article however is based on the literature cited. While the article is perhaps too obtuse, and uses too much jargon, that's not a problem requiring deletion, rather a problem requiring cleanup. --bainer (talk) 08:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You cut the most intelligible part of the article. :) To wit:
An average dictionary contains 10 definitions of knowledge and 20 definitions of service. Multiplying ambiguity times itself yields ambiguity squared. Consequently, the term knowledge services is used to mean virtually anything. Of the first 100 Web sites listed by Google (on April 3, 2007) containing the term “knowledge services”, 66 non-redundant organizational sites were classified into 24 subject areas in 8 subject groups, indicating highly diverse use of the term. Subject groups included business applications and information technology, followed by learning, investment, governance, networking, libraries, and specific sites. Consulting companies provided 69% of the sites, with government activities providing 15%. Virtually all sites describe or define knowledge services specifically in the context of their business or mandate.
This certainly seems relevant to this discussion also. The prior version of the article confessed that "knowledge services" was so vague as to be meaningless. It strongly implicated the presence of "consulting companies" in promoting the empty phrase. In other words, this is crypto-spam, seeking to legitimize and publicize this phrase, seeking to suborn whatever credibility Wikipedia has in order to sell these platitudes. It is likely also a conflict of interest. This paragraph may be original research; but it was also the best written and most revealing paragraph in the article. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like marketing-speak either, but the references listed which use the term are legitimate academic sources. If the problem is that the article uses too much jargon, or is too unclear, then by all means it should be cleaned up. But that's not a problem requiring deletion. --bainer (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Hi Thebainer, while I'd like to be sympathetic to your cause of saving this article, just because a few academic sources are referenced does not mean it's not biased; also, I've read several of those sources references and they do not explicitly deal with the challenge of defining "knowledge services". To quote from the bottom of Wikipedia's page on neologisms. An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs and books that use the term) are insufficient to support use of (or articles on) neologisms because this is analysis and synthesis of primary source material (which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy). To paraphrase Wikipedia:No original research: If you have research to support the inclusion of a term in the corpus of knowledge that is Wikipedia, the best approach is to arrange to have your results published in a peer-reviewed journal or reputable news outlet and then document your work in an appropriately non-partisan manner. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms" Abc378 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... To maintain a Neutral Point of View (NPOV) point of view, we need verifiable articles that explicitly try to define what makes up a "knowledge service" and why this service differs from all other prior services (i.e., it's not just a buzzword with knowledge added in front of services). In addition, we then need to see the word being used by multiple, non-marketing/non-consulting/non-corporate entities who do not have the possibility of an ulterior motive for the word (i.e., to create business or the illusion of authority). That's not present here and I believe the way in which this was written really makes people suspicious. As such, might I suggest, that if you really want an article on services on Wikipedia, you do not merge or cut-and-paste this convoluted text, but instead attempt to write a paragraph with a NPOV and add it under an existing article (say, Knowledge Management as a sub-section and go from there? That community will be able to see if "knowledge services" really do represent something that differs service differs from all other prior services (aside, I've not been convinced). Abc378 08:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on grounds that this is a neologism. Proponents of Knowledge management are going to hate me, but my view is that, this article is the thin edge of the wedge: soon there will be articles on 'Knowledge development environment', 'Knowledge oriented architecture', and 'Knowledge network integration' etc - the combinations and permutations are endless. At the end of the day, Knowledge services is just a fancy neologism for database administration used by 'Knowledge service management consultants', or should that be 'Knowledge management service consultants'? --Gavin Collins 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a term which has been used in the relevant academic literature for a number of years. Google Books search reveals the exact term appearing in a number of print sources. I don't think you can really call it a neologism. --bainer (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 11:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the reasons I stated earlier + I do not necessarily believe that this represents a frequently cited or discussed concept within either academic or practitioner literature; I say this as someone with more than twelve years in both worlds and while I have seen "web services", I do not believe "knowledge services" represents any well-defined or agreed upon term in the literature. Abc378 12:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To appropriate page. If it is vaguely different, give it its own section with a few lines. Burzmali 14:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is too much of this unreadable, vague, and airy knowledge management cruft already. Consider the lead paragraph
Knowledge services is an emerging concept that integrates Knowledge Management, Knowledge organizations, and Knowledge markets. Knowledge Services are programs that produce or provide content-based organizational outputs with embedded value that are intended to be used or transferred to meet external user wants or needs. Knowledge services are delivered through a service delivery spectrum that functions within knowledge markets.
After reading this, do you really know something you didn't know before? First, this is an "emerging concept"; that in itself violates several well established rules here. More importantly, is there any substance to this "concept?" Let's look for nouns and active verbs. We have "programs" that "produce or provide" "outputs" with "value" that "meet external user wants and needs." It seems that the chief thing to know about Knowledge Services is that you could have thought it all up yourself while reading a thesaurus on a break for No. 2. This is not knowledge; it is language gone pathological. All of this bollocks needs to be gone, gone, gone, gone. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Leveragig the syllogism of its core mission statement, the underlying core deliverable is empowering to the indicatations that this is one big steaming pile of unreadable crap ~ Infrangible 03:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. Coined, I think, to market IT services.Saganaki- 03:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. More "emerging concept" neologism garbage. Where's the 2.0? :) --- RockMFR 20:53, 14 July 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.