Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Enterprise-ready

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. - Mailer Diablo 09:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enterprise-ready

Original research defining a very open-ended term. Google search for "enterprise-ready" -wikipedia +scalability +maintainability +reliability +compatibility yields no results backing up this treatment of the subject [1]. Mangojuice^talk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

• Neutral I get a number of IT trade publications, and "enterprise-ready" is a fairly common term (though not always hyphenated), even appearing in headlines with no need for explanation. I suspect just about everyone working in IT or executive management would recognise the term. The definition used in the article is basically correct, but the overuse of "must" makes it sound too authoritive--in reality, it's one of those terms that is slightly nebulous by nature. Of course, the big question is whether it should have an article. I'm not really sure. It's a common term and I surely wouldn't call it a neologism, but I can't imagine how to exapand it further than the extended dicdef it already is. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:11, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. What Starblind says is quite correct, but policy says that no sources = WP:OR = deletion. Also, WP:WINAD. Sandstein 20:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. "The term entered the mainstream through marketing efforts." This article is essentially a wordy tautology: an elaboration of a term which, as Andrew Lenahan notes, is inherently vague and in vogue because of that vagueness. Contains further jargon like "SLAs", whatever that means. This is also full of inappropriate top-level abstractions like "systems" and "solutions". - Smerdis of Tlön 20:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete reeks of marketing material, and no sources to satisfy WP:NEO.-- danntm ^T _C 22:12, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the comments of Andrew Lenahan; good for buzzword bingo, not much else. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:20, 26 October 2006 (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.