Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Structured dialogic design

There are a number of consulting firms that are using this methodology, but the posting is directed to the methodology rather than to the consulting firms. And the consulting firms do also provide other services.

What is different about this page is that it the methodology is an assembly of practices with a lot of history. It is not clear if other methodologies can be so constructed. Maybe. The metaphor is that this is like a recipe for a cake or for a healing remedy. There are no factual inaccuracies in what is presented.

It is interesting because if Wiikipedia were to prevent folks from knowing about this formula, it would deny access to it. There is nothing here that could not be reused by others. The name itself, is an attempt to protect the integrity of the recipe.

How does wikipedia treat a concept such as "wicked problem?" It is a published idea. The structured dialogic design is also a published idea.

It is interesting that peer reviewed journals might recoginze structured dialogic design as something that was unique and powerful, and yet wikipedia would say that it is a term without meaning other than a mask for sales for unstated prices and by parties in unknown markets.

I respect what Tom is saying here. The original authors probably copied and pasted some text rather than authoring specifically for Wikipedia. Editors here should recognize many of us are as new to Wikipedia as you may have been 10 years ago.

SDD is a 40-year developed methodology that has been published in hundreds of peer-reviewed journals, under various embodiments. The Service Mark (SM) designation should probably be removed in Wikipedia, but it could be mentioned in a footnote, as it is maintained by a non-profit organization to preserve the integrity of the process.

There should be several edits made soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redesignresearch (talk • contribs) 19:00, 26 February 2011 (UTC)