Talk:Knowledge retention

Distinct from KM article

I can't see enough material here to justify it being an article and there is a strong danger that it replicates the KM article which is hardly overlong -----Snowded ^TALK 17:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

To expand on this point - knowledge retention is a topic within knowledge management but there is no evidence it is distinct as a subject. There is no source in this article which establishes that. The basic distinction on method is indirectly supported by one third party reference and more directly from a journal article fairly evidently written by the person who created this article in the first place. A simple google search says that person runs a KM consultancy practice and I susect we are seeing a particular approach to KM being given a separate article in Wikipedia to add authority. There are no references to support the method distinction made which is original research.

To be honest I am suprised this got through any review and unless someone can explain (with third party references) why this is distinct I am going to nominate it for deletion. -----Snowded ^TALK 06:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)