Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital Mastery

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:09, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Mastery

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

WP:NOTWHATEVERTHEHELLTHISIS TimothyJosephWood 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally impenetrable mess of buzzwords. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - crazy mess and needs to be cut down... or possibly merged. Way too long.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cut down to to what? Two of the sources are broken, one is Wikipedia, one is a power point (we'll get back to that later), and most of the rest don't use the term at all, not even in passing ([1], [2], [3], [4]). One source actually does ([5]), and it's pretty much empty jargon all the way down (e.g., lets talk about vision... and pretend like its a term that has some sort of well-defined substance when it obviously doesn't).

The term itself is so exceedingly vague that its really fundamentally impossible to tell if sources "using it" are actually using it, or just using those words in that order, that is, unless it somehow traces back to this single book, which appears to be the crux of the whole thing, and is the same actual source for the power point and the one interview that seems to be using the term in this particular way.

The only thing of any encyclopedic relevance I can see this ever turning into is an article on the book itself. It might actually be notable, but it's hard to tell. A lot of the sources are "about stuff" and mention the book, and vaguely about concepts related to the person, or book, or something... and some of it is so ... honestly patently cringe worthy in the sheer magnitude of the corporate circle jerk that it's hard to read (e.g., Successful digital transformation is like a caterpillar turning into a butterfly. [6]). If you made some of this stuff up as a parody of corporate cruft it wouldn't be believable.

But even if the book is notable, this article isn't about the book, and clearing away all the gory borderline advocacy-like uncritical acceptance of the book's concepts, and all the obvious original research along with it, we're pretty much left with Digital Mastery is a concept coined by some guy in some book. TimothyJosephWood 12:29, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- poorly sourced original research which also comes across as WP:ADVOCACY for something, I could not figure out which :-). Not something one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:36, 25 May 2017 (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.