Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business intelligence 3.0

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:44, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Business intelligence 3.0

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

Article is advertising. Business Intelligence 3.0 is not used in any research/journal articles. Described features are already included in Business Intelligence 2.0 (e.g. Social Media). Cited sources go back to company Panorama or Forrester (Kobielus) working with Panorama. 85.180.132.85 2013-03-04T18:53:43 [1] (paperwork done by John Vandenberg ^(chat) 01:16, 18 March 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. What would appear to be a substantial and referenced article is quickly deflated by the vague, promotional vaporings of the text:

....a term that refers to new tools and software for business intelligence, that enable contextual discovery and more collaborative decision making. BI 3.0 is socially enabled, which keeps it in line with the popularization of social media technologies and the demand for more intuitive self-service BI. Some executives, such as Venkat Iyer, the practice head of business information management for Capgemini, have called it the future of business intelligence in the face of new technology and rising data use.

The basic problem here is for gee-whiz promotional IT slogans, it's easy to get patent nonsense into print. The unreadable gunk of the article fails to persuade me that this term is anything other than a sales slogan for various self-promoters. Even if they manage to get the term into print, there's no 'there' there, no underlying thing for an article to be about. It's all about promising the moon and obscuring details, and hoping that if you spit out the patter at great enough length nobody will be paying attention any more:

Relevancy BI 3.0 solutions take user patterns and their individual profiles and use computational analysis to present the most relevant data and corresponding insights. Contextual information is easier to understand by users at all levels of the enterprise, and lets managers take actionable steps. The output of more relevant results is also more efficient, as users no longer need to sift through data or analyses which do not correspond to their job duties.

All I can get from it is that datamining personal information from social media is supposed to be a new "version" of "business intelligence", and this tiny idea gets spun into this TL:DR text designed to make this the Next Big Thing. Articles have to mean something. This doesn't. Articles should have a subject. This doesn't. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. fwiw, I agree with the nominating IP, and thank Smerdis of Tlön for the more detailed rationale for deletion. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:01, 21 March 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.