Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Service governance


 * 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 move to draft space. The consensus below is that this topic has potential, but the current state of the article isn't good enough for mainspace. Deryck C. 22:04, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Service governance

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Vague article on non-distinctive topic, promoting one specific view of it. Part of a complex of very similar articles. They probably all need to be looked at to see which ones are worth saving, but this is the worst of them  DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what articles you mean, but I'd expect this to be the 'worst of them' because it is the most recent. I have been given advice on providing proper citations, and I've started working on doing that. I'd like to improve the article, and have others in the same field help improve it - I am certainly aware of the need for improvement.

If you had a list of specific things I can do to make this, and the other articles you mention, hang together better, I'd be happy to start tackling the project.

This particular subject, lies in two separate, but connected fields - services and governance.

There articles on governance, such as those on the King III report, the Cadbury report and on 'comply or explain' governance.

There are also articles on services. From many different perspectives, some out of date, some very specific to some industries, and some, I think, fairly up-to-date and current. These cover subjects such as service management, iT service management, SOA, IT governance, and similar.

This particular subject, service governance, along with enterprise service management, is, part of a discipline convergence that's been on-going for a few years.

Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep My first impression was WP:TNT, whatever the author was writing about was so jargonized as to be unusable; but I've rewritten some of the article, and while I think that it needs better sourcing, I believe that it is a valid topic. I have found the term used in what I think is this sence in a number of articles in GoogleScholar, some within an IT context and some within the broader corporate context, and one even in cross-organizational context. "Towards a service governance framework for the internet of services." This article was created on 10 December 2015 by Fustbariclation~enwiki who has been an editor since 8 August 2005. I've been able to identify two other articles that may, or may not, be in the nest mentioned by DGG in the nomination, namely:
 * Enterprise service management which appears to be a subset of "service governance" and should be a candidate for merger, and
 * ITIL/service design package
 * --Bejnar (talk) 02:55, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  17:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to put out an invitation for people to help with editing this, and related, material. It's quite a big community, and I'm sure I'll find some people willing to spend time helping clear up the various related articles.

What would I need to do to make this more official? Is it possible to create a community of editors people with the requisite specialist knowledge can help with? Fustbariclation~enwiki (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Draft and userfy at best for now perhaps as there could be an article here but perhaps not a solid one yet. SwisterTwister   talk  06:29, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:58, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Draft and userfy I'm with SwisterTwister: there may be a valuable topic underneath all this but the article doesn't add value in its current form. (I'm sure it's already been improved based on the discussion above.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2016 (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.