Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communication-enabled business process

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. ✗plicit 00:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Communication-enabled business process

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Communication-enabled business process (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is not a notable concept. There is no meaningful coverage of this in independent reliable sources. This was coined by a consulting company to advertise its services. Thenightaway (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:43, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Google scholar indicates the term is in sustained use in academic papers. Mccapra (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• This does not seem like sustained use in academic work to me. As far as I can tell, most of the references are to papers mostly published in the period 2008–2012 and authored by two people: "Wu Chou" and "Marcos Báez". The other academic references are in obscure publications that have barely any cites. Thenightaway (talk) 21:13, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 17:03, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The user who created the article, initially copypasted it, and has no edits outside the article and its disambiguations/redirects. 21 google scholar results in total is not enough considering there is no significant coverage outside Chou and Báez. It is just a buzzword. Darcyisverycute (talk) 08:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yeah, that sounds like a buzzword. It's also practically orphaned. Suitskvarts (talk) 14:07, 27 December 2023 (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.