Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Services 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 delete. --Ezeu 19:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Services Science, Management, and Engineering

The last AFD was called a keep despite there being a concensus to delete. The aritlce is about a business neologism (the extent of use has not been demonstrated) and is in part an advertisment for a masters program of the same name at UC Berkely. Delete --Peta 13:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - looks like management voodoo to me, although the article doesn't have anything that says what it actually is. I would have thought that was the prime purpose of an encyclopaedia. BTLizard 13:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete - a tissue of vague abstractions, essentially devoid of meaning: complete bollocks. I don't care if it's taught at Berkeley, or can be referenced: it remains sesquipedalian obscurantism seeking to vest managerial platitudes with the appearance of rigour or grandeur by an inappropriate level of abstraction. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• (Moved from the Deletion Review. Please in the future take contested "keep" closures to WP:DRV and don't just start new AfD's). | Delete (Ch to Merge, see below) First, it's UC Berkeley, not UC Berkely or U.C. Berkeley. Second, Berkeley has scores of those programs, they're usually a way to tap new sources of sponsorship money and to semi-formally organize faculty with similar research interests. In this case it's a program that awards a certificate (for taking two classes), pretty much the lowest level of formal acknowledgement the campus offers. Third, it's been around since 2005. Fourth, this reminds me to continue writing on my proposal for scientific terms to avoid such redundancy loops in the future. ~ trialsanderrors 17:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - A neologism coined by IBM and/or UC Berkeley isn't automatically notable, especially when it's a new management buzzword. Geoffrey Spear 18:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the bollocks :) Dlohcierekim 20:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article does not show how this phrase is not simply selling old wine in new bottles (i.e. standard management consulting lines of thinking about services dressed up in new jargon). The Berkeley connection is insufficient - adopting the exact same name as an IBM research/university collaboration initiative[1] suggests a sponsorship or other collaborative relationship with IBM. A phrase promoted by notable institutions is not automatically notable enough for an article, especially when there is indication that the phrase is a protologism/buzzword. A shoutout to User:Trialsanderrors to alerting me to the afd listing of this article (my original comment was on the DRV discussion) Bwithh 23:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO and the colorful arguments above. William Pietri 00:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Move I'm afraid I don't have time to do much new research (wife had baby on Friday!), but my argument in the previous AFD was keep, rewrite, and move to Services science. If you read both of the web links from the article, they both say clearly that the supposed new discipline is called "services science". "Services Science, Management, and Engineering" is just the name of the IBM initiative and the UCB program (probably due to IBM fronting some of the cash, I suspect). And services science gets an awful lot of Google hits - about 152,000. (See, for instance this International Herald Tribune article.) It may be a management buzzword, but it looks like it has gotten a fair amount of press. Brianyoumans 06:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd say 90% of those simply have nothing to do with SSME, but some of them qualify as secondary sources. Still, with comments like this: "Services is a drastically understudied field", I'm not sure if it's enough to cover it separately from Service. But I'm changing my vote to Merge to Service. ~ trialsanderrors 00:55, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. Catchpole 15:21, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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.