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 KEEP. Yes the vote was 4-1 Delete, but. That is not a huge amount of voters, and... what were you thinking? Granted the article name has an extraneous colon and there is a spam link at the bottom of the article, but sheesh. A quick search reveals that US Berkely has a Services Science, Management, and Engineering program. UC Berkely notable enough? IBM uses the concept also. IBM notable enough? I suspect that the two commentors after the relist may have been commenting just to move the thing, already relisted once, to a conclusion. I mean, butter my butt and call me a bun, but no way am I gonna delete this article. Herostratus 03:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:VSCA. Non notable. Generic, non registerable phrase and concept dressed up as a management buzzphrase and service. Was unable to access the SLURL link. Ohconfucius 05:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, Move Looking at the link that you didn't have to register to use, it is obvious that if the article survives, it should get moved to "Services science", which is what the supposed new discipline is called. See, for instance, this BusinessWeek article. This needs a lot of rewriting, but it could be a start on an article on this subject - which gets over 150,000 ghits. The "SSME" phrase is also used, but it seems to be specifically some sort of IBM initiative. --Brianyoumans 07:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,cleanup Mukadderat 18:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Delete (changed my vote: no one bothered to do anything useful with the text). It liooks like a piece of promo, with the only ref to a dubious website. Mukadderat 17:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Sam Blanning(talk) 00:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Peta 01:04, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom :) Dlohcierekim 02:01, 12 September 2006 (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.