Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Capability Maturity Model (SCMMI SEI)

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. You were right, it's a copyvio. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Software Capability Maturity Model (SCMMI SEI)

Contested prod, original reason was non-notable, possible copyvio and possible original research. This also turns out to be a paid advert, see [1], [2] and the histories of this page and aerial advertising. MER-C 06:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I hate it.. I hate it... Bart Simpson way. This, shall we say, model, was a mandatory bit of exam syllabus ... for accountants (ACCA paper 1.4 (or was it 2.x?), around 2003 or 2004 - the whole course was later removed from exam program). The very fact that a large professional corp included it in its qualification program indicates some notability. NVO (talk) 07:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Borderline G11 candidate. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 11:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NeedsRefs: The version I read had zero refs anywhere. IT also reads like a SCIGEN paper- not that it is incoherent, but the platitudes have the same knowledge content as a paper written with no regard to semantics. That is, as it stands, assuming it could be sourced, it just describes a taxonomy and defines the words within this world. So, if you are going to keep at minimum someone needs to go get some sources. If you want to keep it get at least one unaffiliated secondary source SOMEWHERE. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or incorporate into the CMMI article Ecragg (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suspect much of the material is a copyright violation. There is text taken verbtaim that can be found in this document summary. Based on the style of writing, I suspect that all of the article is a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 9 July 2009 (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.