Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge process outsourcing Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Knowledge_process_outsourcing

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 16:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge process outsourcing

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested proposed deletion, not mine. Original research about a non-notable neologism used by consultancy firms in information technology outsourcing. Seems to be intended to sell the idea:

IT outsourcing is strongly focused around technical professionalism, and the migration to business process outsourcing introduces this extra dimension of application professionalism. Ever more complex services, as implied by KPO, demonstrate this very well. The profile of people being hired to serve within KPO service companies are more diverse than just being drawn from technical IT services – these are people with MBAs, and medical, engineering, design or other specialist business skills. KPO delivers higher value to organizations that offshore their domain-based processes, thereby enhancing the traditional cost– quality paradigm of BPO. The central theme of KPO is to create value for the client by providing business expertise rather than process expertise. So KPO involves a shift from standardized processes to advanced analytical thinking, technical skills and decisive judgement based on experience.
Comprehensive IT solutions are offered by vendors who provide solutions covering the entire life cycle of a market research project. Smaller firms can also benefit from these solutions as they are cost effective and remain within the budget of smaller organizations.
KPO is claimed to efficiently increase productivity and increase cost savings in the area of market research. Advocates claim that the trend is likely to prove increasingly popular in the global market research industry.

Possibly worth a sentence in outsourcing, but this appears to be entirely original research and devoted to promoting a neologism for a business model. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 18:00, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NEO, marketing/management gobbledyspeak. (How did I know who surrogate Nom would be without even looking... must be magnetic attraction to topic) Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The claim of the nomination that the topic is original and not notable is blatantly false. For example, see Methodology of Business Studies which provides independent and detailed coverage of the topic. Warden (talk) 18:57, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That book is apparently a print to order textbook assembled "For the First Semester B.Com Course at Mahatma Gandhi University".[1] While it might indicate some level of academic interest in the buzzword phrase, I'm not sure it would get to notability, even if the text currently here were an actual article. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That the source is a university textbook seems to be a good thing. For a wider assessment of the general level of academic interest in the topic, you merely need to click on the search link to Google Scholar above which lists hundreds more sources in this case. If you have not already done this, then you are not properly following the process described at WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 18:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep KPO has been covered by more than a few business journals

http://iospress.metapress.com/content/3f9gxb89j8h81k3q/
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237307001211
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-6486.2010.00944.x/full
http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/ass/article/view/539
http://vis.sagepub.com/content/12/1/19.short
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1634390&show=abstract

trakesht (talk) 06:36, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article's subject is notable (see Warden), while the article itself is very, very poor. It's no WP:OR but has to be improved (references!). --Tom1492 (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not wholly convinced that academic discussions or proposals for new business models automatically make them notable. But if the consensus of the community is that this subject is in fact substantive enough to deserve coverage, I'd propose stubbing this and replacing its text entirely with a brief paragraph condensed out of Warden's source, which at least is semi-intelligible and not paywalled. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep TOPIC is notable, ARTICLE is terrible. Someone should really rewrite it... My2011 (talk) 19:46, 17 February 2012 (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.