Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service lifecycle management

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:51, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Service lifecycle management

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

Dreadful article not suitable for this encyclopedia - eg the lead sentence "Service lifecycle management (SLM) is defined by industry analyst firm AMR Research and described as a holistic approach which helps service organizations better understand the revenue potential by looking at service opportunities proactively as a lifecycle rather than a single event or series of discrete events, combining all service-based operations into a single, albeit complex, set of workflows and connected business processes. "jargonese", - only sources are pay to read articles from "Aberdeen Group" - no evidence this is a reliable source - could be promotional spam. Article is not currently an encyclopedic topic. If this subject could a useful article it would need nuking and starting over. Not suggesting this is not a notable topic, just a dreadful article. Will withdraw if a better article can be made.

more complicated by the fact that many sources on the topic appear to be written in complete gibberish eg [1] Hopefully someone will be able to exercise some common sense and editorial oversight on this. Oranjblud (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KTC (talk) 00:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly stubbing to a more solid foundation could be an alternative to deletion?Oranjblud (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of wp:notability. Of the three "references" given, two are links to the maker's web site, and the third is a bare link that goes nowhere, with a note indicating a non-existent web site. Article content sounds like what comes out of one of those random corporate gibberesh generators. North8000 (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a buzzphrase used by several companies, including IBM [2] and Parametric Technology Corporation [3], but with different meanings. Google Trends shows this phrase first appearing in 2009, and showing up more in 2012. WP:NEO seems to apply. It seems to appear only in press releases and marketing material. If the phrase catches on, it might be worth an article, but we're not there yet. The current Wikipedia content is incomprehensible, and the sources I'm finding aren't much better. --John Nagle (talk) 06:58, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - might be worth a redirect to Product Lifecycle Management from which frankly there doesn't seem to be more than a weak sales-y distinction. Dreadful commercial prose failing to mask lack of substance let alone notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It's sad that modern industry is blighted with nonsense such as this. It apparently allows organizations to "strategically leverage their service operations", which smells distinctly of manure. It appears to simply be about reviewing a 'service' on an ongoing basis in order to improve it, which any good business will have been doing centuries before anyone came up with this. No doubt a lot of consultants will make a lot of money out of it. Unfortunately, there is a SLM element within (the once worthwhile but increasingly bloated) ITIL and there are books discussing it (e.g. this, this and this, though some others use the term with a different meaning relating to Web services), so it may be something we should really keep and improve. --Michig (talk) 18:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Happy to delete for now though on the basis that it would require a complete rewrite. --Michig (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2012 (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.