Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IT Efficiency

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 redirect to Green computing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:19, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IT Efficiency

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

Article was deprodded for WP:NEO, but the concern still exists. Reading over the citations they are passing mentions, or make no mention at all of the specific term, "IT Efficiency." For instance, the New York Times article linked makes no mention of the term at all. Other articles refer to "Green IT." So it does not appear, "IT Efficiency" warrants an article on its own, and it appears to be WP:NEO. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 17:26, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, neologism. NawlinWiki (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An essay, and more of that sort of thing: As technology has become more critical to the business function, business has become more demanding, requesting new and better technology to help push the business forward. To provide a high level of service, the IT organization has rolled out new technology at a brisk pace, without the chance to develop policies and procedures beforehand to ensure that technology was being deployed and utilized efficiently. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:38, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Merge anything useful (e.g. any good references/etc.) into Green computing. Then make it a redirect to same. Zodon (talk) 21:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge. Not even a neologism, since it is just an acronym and a word put together, which is used in two different ways (the "green" sense vs. the business efficiency sense) or not at all in the links. No citations so not really coherent since it is not clear which of concepts it is supposed to be about. W Nowicki (talk) 21:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Smerdis. This is a totally uninformative article based on an extremely convoluted definition. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:21, 30 September 2011 (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.