Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benefit dependency network

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 no consensus. There is a consensus that the article in its present state is full of buzzwords and jargon and needs some adjustment to be comprehensible to the ordinary reader, however there isn't any real agreement on whether this is a notable concept that could theoretically have a decent article written about it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:27, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Benefit dependency network[edit]

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

Unreliably sourced clusterfuck of buzzwords that is completely impenetrable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what does this even mean exactly? Legacypac (talk) 07:55, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While the current article is somewhat buzzwordy, Benefit dependency network is a buzzword that is recognized by RS. As this is a buzzword, all be it defined by other buzzwords currently, that is buzzing around in RS, we should have an article. Specifically a quick google-scholar check shows use of this term by approx. 42 different articles, and google-books shows approx. 18. Parsing through the buzzwords, BDN seems to be a way of visualizing current capabilities and changes thereof that might lead to benefit(s), and would seem to be used mainly in Information Technology when assessing potential changes to an IT environment or when attempting to improve (benefit) the environment via some changes.Icewhiz (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it with {{jargon}}, for what it's worth. I suppose it applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted, search finds many references and examples. Important because it is one of the few (if only) approaches that visualizes WHY rather than HOW of change. The whole area is full of buzzwords but that is our challenge to explain isn't it? David Slight (talk) 17:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a single article in Harvard Business Review isn't enough for notability, is there a second credible (and independent) source that also uses this term? Power~enwiki (talk) 04:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are quite a few book and scholar hits. e.g. - [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. And this is far from a complete list. This jargony buzzword is live.Icewhiz (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are plenty of reliable sources out there that the article could and should be using. Obviously it's not been well written, but that isn't the criterion. A BDN is a business-oriented method of what engineers would call goal modelling, an "objective" being a top-level goal, and a "benefit" being a subgoal. Analysing such things is at least as useful in business as in engineering, and it is of encyclopedic interest. Enough said. I think I'll add an example diagram to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:59, 28 June 2017 (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.