Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eculture


 * 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. Sr13 02:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Eculture

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded as Original Research, prod was removed for reasons not at all related to the subject of the prod. am AfDing mostly as a way to handle this without it turning into a series of added and removed prods. Weak Delete Improbcat 13:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, complete bollocks, and possibly speedy delete as patent nonsense:
 * eCulture is a construct upon, and advancement of, the typical corporate culture – in acclimatizing the modern organization for best success in the quickening business-technology environment. No organization can thrive in today’s world without its technical supports - but increasingly, actual business survival involves managing an accelerating, even forced, evolution of critical technical empowerments.
 * If people insist on writing stuff like this, I will taunt them a second time. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete neologism.--Ispy1981 15:56, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:NEO and WP:BULLSHIT. This encompasses bureaucratispeak at some of its turgid worst.  Given Smerdis' example, just that last clause alone is a hoot:  what, there are "unreal" or "virtual" business survivals?    Ravenswing  16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. What it seems to be trying to say is, "Computers are so complicated!  But you need them for your business.  Therefore, if you want to make money, you're going to have to spend even more money, and I'm the guy you need to spend it on."  Stated this way, the motive becomes too transparent, and the underpants gnome plan is too conspicuous.  So the aspirant needs to re-cast his message into the sort of language this "article" uses. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article, and there are no sources. Corvus cornix 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, cut-and-past of some half-witted kid's homework paper most likely. This one can go, imo, as total and utter bollocks. Bigdaddy1981 17:21, 2 July 2007 (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.