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.
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.
ReykYO!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
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)
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.
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.
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.
ReykYO!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
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)
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.