Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service science, management and engineering

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. MBisanz ^talk 15:31, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Service science, management and engineering[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This buzzword salad has been nothing but a faintly promotional pedagogical essay since it was written. Most of the sources it contains are deadlinks or useless red herrings, and my own searches have come up with nothing. Largely this is because the subject is so vague and obscured by buzzwords that it is legitimately impossible to tell if a possible source is about the same subject. In any case, even if this article was about anything at all (it's not) it would still be necessary to rewrite it from scratch since the current content is irreparably unencyclopedic. Reyk _YO! 19:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is clearly notable as there are several books written about it including:

Service Science, Management, and Engineering: Theory and Applications
Handbook of Service Science
Service Science, Management and Engineering: Education for the 21st Century
Progressive Trends in Knowledge and System-Based Science for Service Innovation
Introduction to Service Engineering
The Science of Service Systems
Service Systems Science
Service Science: The Foundations of Service Engineering and Management

The title of the page in question – Service Science, Management, and Engineering (SSME) – is IBM's name for this discipline. IBM seems to have been quite influential and so it is a reasonable title for the topic. The nomination's claim that the topic is about nothing at all is absurd and its claim to have found no sources seems equally implausible. My impression is that it's just a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:IGNORINGATD and WP:RUBBISH. None of these are reasons to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if the term is notable, and this is not likely, the current article is a WP:ESSAY mess in need of WP:TNT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable:

Ongoing citations in the scientific literature - leading journals of professional associations, books, conference proceedings
University courses and degree programs that use the name

Broken links are now removed. Most relevant content is being moved forward in sections. Authors of less relevant content being contacted. Spohrer (talk) 19:23:51 UTC Saturday, August 15, 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:11, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I take the nomination in good faith, thank you for it. It's undeniable that the article has near-fatal problems: it's an un-encyclopedic essay, written in dense corporate prose which makes many of us itch with impatience, and the article has an "in-universe" / promotional / uncritical quality. These problems would require major surgery to get straightened out, not just a light copyedit. However the topic is real, evidently notable, and therefore worth a good description. In English. --Lockley (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2020 (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.