Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Value-Chain Group

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. Tone 15:24, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Value-Chain Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested proposed deletion. Promotional article for an organization described as a global trade consortium which provides a standardized framework and toolsets for business transformation, which is about as vague and meaningless a description of a consultancy as you can possibly get. Every sentence of the article is advertising and patent nonsense:

• VCG builds unified business processes (value streams) within organizations and across the extended value chain.
• It offers the Business Process Transformation Framework (BPTF), claimed to be the only publicly available, enterprise-wide process transformation framework that can support any process configuration at the required level of detail.
• The BPTF combines the best practices of model-based process design, change management, and organizational education.

There are no real references, although an attempt has been made to make it appear otherwise. All of the "references" supplied are to self-published PDFs of sales brochures. All are hosted at a site called "bptrends.com", which I assume is related. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I couldn't find any coverage in reliable sources to establish the topic's notability. --Bmusician 04:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I sometimes support (& rewrite) articles like this, but this isn't substantial enough to be worth the clarification and rewriting that would be necessary. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 3 March 2012 (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.