Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business logic
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
— User:Donagle, 09:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NONSENSE (Wikipedia:Patent nonsense)