Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Prometheus Process bound for Deletion IronGargoyle 18:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prometheus Process

Prometheus Process (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bumped from the the COI noticeboard. Non-obvious but pure corporate vanity as the author of the article, Mike Cline (talk · contribs) is actually the vice president of the company who invented this strategy. See here (the real copy of the page vanished while the article was on the noticeboard). Most of the sources are self-published, but there's a few more on the noticeboard. Notability is unclear. MER-C 11:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment, gets over one thousand ghits. Which is a lot more than I would have expected just from reading this AfD nomination and glancing at the article. But am too tired to decide for now what I should vote, looks like it requires a bit of carefull thinking and researching to sort this one out. So for now I'll Abstain Weak Keep and I'll come back later tomorrow, will read what everybody else has had to say about this. Mathmo Talk 12:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC) 12:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re the "missing" news.htm page. An unfortunate circumstance that I would agree does give the wrong appearance. The website it belonged too changed completely in mid to late December and that page has not been part of the site since then--It is not missing--it has never been there stnce the change. The fact that it shows up in a cached Google search is no surprise. That said, there is nothing in the old page's content to hide either.--Mike Cline 13:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Re the "Invented By The company" comment above. It bears some rebuttal. The methodology essentially started in the early 1980's at the National War College with the first published versions showing up in The Air Campaign (1986). The methodology (although not bearing it current moniker) was actually used for the planning of the first Gulf War. This is well documented and John Warden is referenced in numerous US and foreign texts related to this methodology. In the early 1990s, elements of methodology were taught and still are at the USAF Air Command and Staff College and have been taught at many of the other Military service schools and professional schools. This all occurred before I ever went to work for the company. Shortly after the first Gulf War, John Warden was working in the office of American Competitiveness in the White House under then Vice President Dan Qualye. The Methodology was evolving as John worked with businesses throughout the U.S. In the 1995, John, retired from the USAF, started his current company and began coalesing the methodology into what it is today. In that process, he collaborated with another author and management consultant, Leeland Russell to write Winning in FastTime and coin the term "Prometheus Process" to capture the essence of the strategic planning methodology. I became involved with company in 1996 as a software guy to build tools related to the evolving process. Other consultancies, some fairly major names use versions of this methodology to work with their clients. As I posted on the COI discussion, this link * [[1]] kinda of summarizes the process and gives it some sort of pedigree. However, I do think a strict adherance to the COI guidelines by me is necessary here and I will make those reverts and deletions as appropriate to clean up that angle.--Mike Cline 14:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, a good portion of this article needs to be cleaned up and better sourced or removed, however the primary claim to notability seems to be established by Winning in fast time —siroχo 15:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
Winning in FastTime is published by Venturist Publishing, co-authored by John Warden who's president of Venturist, Inc, the company Mike Cline works for. --Ronz 17:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Quarl (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
  • delete pure COI, mixed with the typical commercial spam of describing it all at excessive length. --and, what is a little odd about this article is that the author has an elaborate table of possible COI on his userpage, including the all of his hobbies, but doesn't mention this particular one vocational interest.DGG 08:26, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. It is, in all its egregious non-encyclopedic presumption, a specimen of what was a few months ago rightly termed corporate vanity/vandalism. — Athænara ✉ 10:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete No notability is asserted, virtually all references are from material written by the people who invented the term. While COI is an issue, lack of notability is the real reason for deletion, without demonstrating notability it doesn't belong regardless of who wrote the article. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, perhaps would be a better idea to merge this into an article about the person instead? Mathmo Talk 23:43, 12 February 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.