Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Responsive process 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Responsive process management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Term seems to be a neologism and the article is original research based upon that. The term seems to have been created by a software company called 'progress software' who have a piece of software that they want to sell. None of the sources used in the article mention the term, no reliable sources seem to mention the term (note if you google it don't get it confused with Emergency Response process management or Disaster Response process management - entirely different things not described in this article).

In summary, the term has no currency and is not mentioned in RS. Cameron Scott (talk) 20:04, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete based on a Google check this appears to be a promotional term used by a single software company, though this doesn't seem to be mentioned in the article, making this at best a neologism and at worst sneaky spam. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not significantly covered by RS, uses references to RS that don't mention the term. Peter Karlsen (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - reeks of original research, and looks suspiciously like a coatrack from here. --Orange Mike | Talk 04:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. A neologism with little reliable coverage used/coined by a company. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unreadable twaddle only masquerading as English:
  
  a distinctive form of business process management characterized by a high degree of real-time responsiveness to operational conditions and events. RPM derives its heightened operational responsiveness from its integration of several technology-enabled capabilities.....
  The foundation of responsive process management is the ability of process owners to see what is happening across the organization and in key parts of the operational environment, in real time. This comprehensive real-time visibility spans geographic locations, organizational divisions, and technology systems.
  Also driving the responsiveness of RPM is the continuous analysis of real-time visibility data so as to render the data operationally meaningful. Because responsive process management places a premium on rapid, intelligent response to a high volume of constantly shifting information, the analysis of real-time visibility data is ongoing and highly automated.
  . Responsive process management leverages enterprise visibility and continuous analysis to optimize process execution in real time. To the extent possible, the organization’s operational processes are automated or semi-automated, and process execution is designed to incorporate the real-time operational intelligence that the platform continuously generates. Where appropriate, the process execution system triggers operator participation, again leveraging real-time operational intelligence.
  
  More might endanger your sanity. This sort of typing is patent nonsense even if it is superficially correct in syntax. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I'll bet it also can "mesh synergistic paradigms". -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • speculation It can probably reverse the polarity of the neutron flow, too! --Orange Mike | Talk 21:26, 13 October 2010 (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.