Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizational performance index

:{{la|Organizational performance index}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Organizational performance index}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Organizational performance index}})

I seriously can't make heads or tails of this.... 2 says you, says two 22:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

• Delete (I'm not sure that's a valid rationale for deletion, but I'll go with another) Non-notable neologism, WP:MADEUP. No reliable third party sources... none found in internet searches. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 22:33, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Content that's so confused or confusing that nobody can reasonably be expected to make sense of it does indeed qualify for deletion. This text surely qualifies: The Organization Performance Index (OPI) is an integrated score that determines an organizations competitiveness. The scores are initially generated from weighted scoring of various areas of management which include Leadership and Management, Human resource focus, customer Orientation and Marketing, Financial Management, Innovation, Information and Knowledge Management and lastly Productivity and Quality. Metrics are used to come up with the weightings required in order to generate the required results. These strings of glittering generalities also have a strong whiff of spam about them as well. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 04:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable term as yet. Notability not established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BenOneHundred (talk • contribs) 09:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete It sounds like a great way to play Buzzword bingo. (Might it even have been made up as a joke, from one of those templates where you choose three random buzzwords to complete each sentence?) But the real problem is not the mind-numbing jargon, it's the lack of any sourcing to establish this as a real term worthy of an encyclopedia article. --MelanieN (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
• Delete Nonsense (spam?), may also fit under WP:NEO --Elassint (talk) 16:57, 4 November 2010 (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.