Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate Knowledge

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 10:25, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Corporate Knowledge

Postmodern jibberjabber that makes many 'learned' references to other scholars without actually giving any details of their work in support of the premise being advanced. Delete as pseudo-hoax - I'm sure there's something in it, but not here, alas. Eddie.willers 22:54, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Incomprehensible, unencyclopedic topic. Andrew pmk | Talk 00:45, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Don´t delete, please. It can be improved. References to Tuomi and Vygotsky in this discussion are valuable in a critical perspective of current approaches to knowledge management. Sergio Storch

• (insufficient votes for clear result - relisting --Doc (?) 16:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC))
• Delete. Incomprehensible article was tagged for cleanup 10 minutes after creation, and no attempts have been made to clean it up in the ensuing 11 months. --Metropolitan90 18:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Copyvio from [1] Dlyons493 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

  Wrong! The page at society-fresh.net is clearly copied from here, as stated at the bottom of it. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Who is this "Tuomi"? What is the book this article is talking about? This reads like an introduction to a book by this Tuomi, but without any other context, it is useless. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Although I could imagine an interesting article about this topic, but this isn't it. JoanneB 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as unrescueable. Vizjim 19:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as incomprehensible, unencyclopedic, and unsalvageable. MCB 06:37, 27 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.