Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business technology management

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:15, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business technology management

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

Article seems to be written by btmcorporation.com with most of the small number of references and "see also" pointing back to their company. It may be a legitimate topic but I think this article should be scrapped. Bhny (talk) 01:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 13:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided but probably delete based on obvious promotional tone and lack of suitable third-party sources. I began searching at Google News with "BTM Institute business technology management" and this is what I saw, probably more than half press releases (republished and original) and articles written by people affiliated with BTM Institute (such as this one and this one) thus promotional and not third-party (conflict of interest). I should also note that the first pages of news results show these problems and I finally something that wasn't a COI in 4th page here but it doesn't help much. In these results, you'll also find foreign results that pretty much look like republished PR. A search at Google Books also found results but are concerningly written by Faisal Hoque, a member of the institute and one of the writers of the COI articles. In that Google Books results, there are two results aren't affiliated with BTM Institute, and they are this (slim chance of usefulness though) and this (another slim chance because it's a brief mention). One final search all around failed to provide anything else. A search at thefreelibrary.com provided more press releases. I'm open to retracting my vote but based on my searches and the article's tone, I doubt there is much hope for this article at this time. For being an "institute" and a business science, there sure isn't much to support this article. No prejudice towards a future article or userfying. SwisterTwister talk 20:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:55, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a professional involved in the problem space described by this article, I see no reason to include it in Wikipedia at all. I heartily support deleting it. The core concept of "business technology management" is simply an attempt, by one commercial organization (hardly an institute), to rebrand the field of Enterprise Architecture under a moniker of their choosing in order to improve their ability to differentiate themselves in the marketplace. This is clearly a commercial activity (advertising). If others deem the "branding" to be noteworthy, I'd support a redirect so that the term "Business Technology Management" redirects to the article for "Enterprise Architecture". Nickmalik (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This is so badly worded as to be word salad. Bearian (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2013 (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.