Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayo-Smith's Pyramid

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. Daniel Case 05:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mayo-Smith's Pyramid

Mayo-Smith's Pyramid (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I have proposed this article for deletion according to WP:NN. This article fails to meet the criteria set forth as follows:

• Significant Coverage: Single source provided covers only the topic of the article as an illustration.
• Reliable: The single source provided is clearly not reliable as it is from an information technology magazine, which has no claim to editorial prowess in the field of project management.
• Sources: There is only one source provided which refers to this diagram, and not even by the title given in this article.
• Independent of the subject: The author of the only provided source is the one for which the eponymous diagram is named and is therefore completely subjective. --DCrazy talk/contrib 17:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam - I've tagged it as such. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 17:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not speedy, since it's not blatant advertising for the magazine cited. Beyond that, I believe I've seen this diagram used in recent Agile process books, but I haven't seen it referred to with this name. I'll check for external sources. Tlesher 17:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't find it where I thought I'd seen it. Objection withdrawn. Tlesher 01:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
• I still think it's spam - not for the magazine, but for Mr. Mayo-Smith and his methods. ɑʀкʏɑɴ 18:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• delete nn neologism. `'Míkka 17:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not as spam, but as trivial and non-notable. This sort of thing is properly not speedy-able, because it needs wider attention to see if it might perhaps be important, but I think a prod would have been appropriate. DGG (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment My prod was reverted after precisely six hours by the same IP who edited the article most frequently. --DCrazy talk/contrib 05:25, 18 July 2007 (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.