Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capability Maturity Model Integration

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The result was : Nomination withdrawn. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:08, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capability Maturity Model Integration[edit]

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

Series of essays / borderline promotional pages, almost entirely sourced to the materials from the project developers themselves. Also nominating CMMI Version 1.3 and Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity strategy 5 Layout Capability Maturity Model and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cybersecurity Strategy. (Note: I am not nominating the main article Capability Maturity Model. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Capability Maturity Model Integration. The others were created (and recreated and recreated) by someone from the company involved starting in May based on a process developed by someone at that company. However the CMMI is a real entity. It is an extension of the work done at the Software Engineering Institute and Carnegie Mellon University on the CMM (software process improvement) to apply it to development processes in general. The article dates back to 2004 and filled out in 2006. There are books comparing it to other methods, such as Process Improvement Essentials: CMMI, Six Sigma, and ISO 9001 (2007) and CMMI and Six Sigma: Partners in Process Improvement (2008). CMMI also should not be merged with the article on CMM as has been suggested. The first should stay focused on software. Both CMM and CMMI could be turned into real encyclopedia articles with history, development, and the pros and cons that emerged during their application. (Warning, personal observation: Companies find many ways to appear to meet requirements without actually improving.) StarryGrandma (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Capability Maturity Model Integration. I agree with the need to keep a version of this page. I'm interviewing for jobs that list "SEI-CMMI" as a responsibility and/or requirement of the job! As to the need for "CMM" vs "CMMI" pages here's current text from the "CMM" page: "The Capability Maturity Model Integration (CMMI) project was formed to sort out the problem of using multiple models for software development processes, thus the CMMI model has superseded the CMM model, though the CMM model continues to be a general theoretical process capability model used in the public domain.[citation needed]". My point being (assuming the text is accurate) that "CMMI" should be the "main page" if indeed it does "superseded the CMM model". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.104.201 (talk • contribs)
Due to the keep votes, I am splitting the nomination of CMMI Version 1.3 and Capability Maturity Model Cybersecurity to a separate page. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Rosoft (talk) 17:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main CMMI article, which is notable per the links mentioned above, and also as a redirect target for one of its former co-nominated articles. I have commented separately on the two others now split out. AllyD (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2015 (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.