Deletion of Business logic

Comment: Term is not yet adequately defined by the industry to merit an encyclopedia article.  Too many of the references described the term as needing definition.  This makes this a neologism in the process of forming.  Per , we need treatments in ''secondary'' sources to have a Wikipedia article.  We aren't there yet; the online Tech Encyclopedia link comes close, but to my eyes doesn't pass muster.  ''Disclosure'' to my shock and surprise, my job is actually relevant to the discussion of this article.  We don't highlight this term in our marketing materials (using "business rules" instead because we have a patent related to that), but at least one of our competitors is being puffed by one of the links in the article, and I feel the closing admin ought to know this
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: If this is  then so are most of the Wikipedia articles on ideas in social science, pop music, works of art, psychological theories, religions, and political philosophies, among many other areas.  The business rules page actually has a good definition of business logic: "Software packages automate Business rules using Business logic."  Are you proposing that we delete the business rules article too? It's also clear from the business logic article that business logic models some of the behavior of traditional business processes such as "accounts, loans, itineraries, etc."  What is nonsensical about that?  I do think the introductory comments equating business logic to other kinds of functional logic are misleading, though. I suggest rewriting the top section, and I'd suggest adding links to the corresponding articles on those particular business processes (accounting, etc.), for those of you who don't understand what these business processes are about.  Understanding the business process being modelled is crucial to understanding the business logic.  BTW, you only need to thumb through a computer book section to see dozens of examples of business logic, so one can hardly argue that it's a new and untried idea.  The proponents have also uncovered a large number of references.  The term (as with its companion term, business rules, which is less well defined than business logic but is not being challenged) in wide use.  I get nearly 9 million hits on Google! There are obviously vast numbers of people who think the phrase is very important, even if some people around here happen to be put off by it.  Even if it had no semantic meaning whatsoever it would still warrant an article as an important social phenomenon. Indeed the topic is quite a bit more important than the topic of the average Wikipedia article.  If you still think the idea is vague, feel free to add a "criticism" section and say so, assuming you have appropriate sources for such a claim
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NONSENSE)

Comment: Qualifies as , unless (most of) the other words in the article are redefined.  The sentences make sense, but the concepts aren't.  &mdash
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NONSENSE)

Comment: per  it's not really a "widespread" IT term (to be fair I've heard it used, but mostly by PM and business owners... the same people who were using "paradigm" and "outside the box" every 5 minutes a few years back)& any site that "defines" it states something along the lines of "Business logic is an often overused term that can be used to describe many things and the definitions are typically very verbose".  It's a term, loosely used, for a wide range of different business processes... and this article just describes one variant definition for Business Logic.  I was debating a bit between delete/keep on the basis that editing could clean this up, but since the industry cannot agree upon what the term actually means, I don't think it is possible to actually write a  article on the subject
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:V)

Comment: per  and . Possibly a |neologism as well
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:OR||WP:NEO)

Comment: Keep'''. Business Logic is a term with no meaning. Although purported to be software terminology, it does not represent a concrete concept of system engineering or database theory. Arguably Business Logic is noteable ''precisely because'' it is in (occasional) use yet represents no defined concept (that is to say it is dilbert-esque). I have observed that most attempts to retrospectively assign a concept to Business Logic tend to gravitate towards describing an abstraction layer, yet do not specify a meaningful difference between the two. Other efforts to give meaning to 'business logic' are clearly far too vague or merely 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Patent nonsense (WP:NONSENSE)

Comment: as |complete bollocks, among other things...although if there is an umbrella term for all the different "forms of logic" (business, functional, presentation etc.) mentioned in the article, then a new article about ''that'', with sections devoted to each "type" might be appropriate, if this really is a term used in IT
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Complete bollocks (WP:BOLLOCKS)