Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Exchange & Commercialisation (KEC)

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 14:40, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge Exchange & Commercialisation (KEC)

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

I'm not sure this is a a meaningful concept, rather than a trade promotion. The introductory sentence describes it "an umbrella term which describes a broad range of activities ..." and goes on to list them: they include essentially every area of entrepreneurship and a good deal else also. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 01:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Just managerial babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Retain. I would disagree - the term has a specific meaning within public sector research, and is often used in this context but without explaining what it actually is: examples: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] therefore my reasoning for including this page is it is useful for anyone looking to further explanation or seeking clarification. It is an umbrella term but similarly to how Marketing includes PR, Advertising, Sales Promotion, Brand etc. ReetGoodOnion talk ~~08:14, 19 April 2016 (GMT)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReetGoodOnion (talk • contribs) 07:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Not a dictionary. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2016 (UTC).[reply]

— Note to closing admin: ReetGoodOnion (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

Comment. The article creator is fairly obviously inexperienced, and I am not at all certain that this is a suitable topic for a standalone page - but the nominator and the one editor so far recommending deletion (neither of whom, I believe, are British) both seem to be missing some important features of the topic (which admittedly have been glossed over or more probably missed by the article creator). I largely tend to agree with User:Xxanthippe that this is managerial babble, but even though I can not recall meeting this particular gem of a phrase before, I am totally convinced by the sources provided that it is managerial babble with significant consequences (when one works in British university administration, one recognises the style). What is happening here is that, for at least a couple of decades, British government policy has been that, beyond a relatively small proportion that goes to pure research topics, government funds for academic research should be aimed at projects with potential commercial applications. The British research councils therefore have policies that make this a condition of most research grants - and one or more research councils have therefore labelled their policy about this as "Knowledge Exchange and Commercialisation", British universities and related bodies have chosen to copy the terminology, and they are employing people and/or contracting with companies to ensure that grant proposals are in line with the policy or at least look as if they are. No doubt, in a few years, the relevant research councils will revise the policy and adopt another term for it - and with a lag of a few more years, British universities and the relevant specialists will follow suit. But we have some more or less usable content here - the article looks like a reasonable account, if rather naive and partial, of the current working of the general policy in a sizeable area of British scientific research (something that currently seems to be completely missing from, for instance, Research Funding in the UK and Research Councils UK). Finally, some hopefully friendly advice for User:ReetGoodOnion: if by any chance you are (or ever have been) employed by or closely associated with PraxisUnico, while you are quite welcome (and indeed encouraged) to create Wikipedia articles on topics like this one, your should look at WP:COI and generally avoid mentioning PraxisUnico or recognisably referring to its activities when writing articles. PWilkinson (talk) 23:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although the references use the term, I didn't find that any are about the topic itself. What we have here are the strategies (or marketing promotions) of different organizations that use the term, undoubted, as said above, since the UK government seems to be tying funding to it. Essentially we have research organizations declaring their "commitment to KEC". The link to PraxisUnico is very WP:COATRACK (and the information that it is used to reference would be best taken from a non-promotional source), and since the same editor created both articles I'm afraid that's what this is. I also think that the topic is covered in other articles on Knowledge transfer, Technology transfer, and Public private partnership. It may make sense to add this particular government campaign into one or more of those, but I don't see it having enough new content for a stand-alone article. I don't turn up anything more in searches. LaMona (talk) 03:50, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best as this is still questionable for any improvements and Draft at best if needed. SwisterTwister talk 04:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this seems to be a very specialised term which I doubt is notable enough for the subject of an article. Perhaps a merge could work if required. Omni Flames ^{let's talk about it} 10:30, 27 April 2016 (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.