Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structured dialogic design Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Structured_dialogic_design

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. -- Cirt (talk) 19:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structured dialogic design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

After removing the copyright violations, there is nothing left but unverified and vague content (and the copyvio stuff wasn't much better...). No indication of notability, and the context is completely unexplained. Seems like an attempt at advertising. Cmprince (talk) 18:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The following text was entered by User:TRFlanagan on this discussion's talk page. I assume it was meant to be placed here. Cmprince (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Whatever else can be said about this, the text here is unsalvageable: a methodology for social systems design based on a scientific foundation of defined axioms, a collection of methods, a philosophy of practice, and a series of laws of dialogue. SDD can be considered a method of participatory action research and a school of design practice (Dialogic Design). Can you explain what this is about, again, without just repeating that string? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all please see some comments by some people in the Discussion of the article. I could agree that for the purpose of an encyclopedia, one might need to use simpler language and define the terms s/he is using. We might need the help of editors here. At the same time it is not easy to summarize a whole scientific field into a few sentences. SDD is a relatively new field of science which has however supported companies, communities, and societies achieve change. In simple words it is a :methodology", a "formula" which if applied correctly achieves something that NO other methodology can do: Twenty stakeholders with opposite opinions and interests converse to a consensus in several levels: 1. The develop a language to talk that allows them to communicate their thoughts 2. The agree on a shared understanding of what their current (problematic) situation looks like 3. The develop a MAP (not a yes/no thing but a "picture") of a future state of their system which is ideal; a consensus of how they envision the future of their organization, system, company etc... 4. The collectively discover what are the obstacles that prevent them from shifting the state of the system towards that ideal state 5. The agree on ACTIONS to take even though they continue to have different opinions and different priorities. BTW what we are talking about here is not trivial. I hope the editor can appreciate this. Now, for this methodology to work, a science has been developed which is scientifically grounded in concepts from cybernetics and systems sciences. The science (like many sciences) uses axioms, laws etc construct the theoretical background. This science has hundreds of SUCCESSFUL applications all over the globe. The European Commission has funded dozens of applications some of which involve all 27 countries. Although it is still a young science, it is a breakthrough. The page developed here was an initial attempt to add it in Wikipedia and encourage the people across the world 9who in most cases are NOT in Wikipedia) to improve, edit and strengthen. In my humble opinion Wikipedia needs this article more than this article needs Wikipedia. Futuristas (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2011 (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.