Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S3M

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

S3M[edit]

S3M is a commercial venture rather than an independently recognized software development model or standard. This article appears to be a form of advertisement for the company and associated web pages with no independently sourced references from appropriate standards bodies. The cross-references with standards such as CMMI have been recently included and are also inappropriate. If S3M was worthy of mention it would be on a list of consultancies which specialize in software development and operational standards.—Ashleyvh (talk) 07:29, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the CSD category existed, this article would surely be under 'Software which fails to assert the importance or significance of the subject' Article contains no mention of why it is notable and there are no reliable sources to ensure verifiability - Toon⁰⁵ 00:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly a bogus commercial entry. The owner has created it, and then carefully and slowly added references to it in other articles over a period of time, and persists in doing so. It should be deleted. 78.110.168.138 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We are using the maturity model in Freescale USA and it has been published by Dr April and Dr Abran two reputable Ph.d. of Canada. The model is available Free online and was published in a 2008 Wiley-IEEE book, and Wiley is a reputable source. I vote to keep so that it continues to be available to all. 09:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC) - C.Milam - Freescale USA.

I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful if you could address the issue of no independently sourced references. The ISBN and page references for the book you mention and a reference and date for the publication by April and Abran would seem appropriate.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that due to the apparent involvement of April and Abran in the S3M website / company, associated publications would not be considered independent.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Caroline informed me on the attack on the S3M maturity model. I lead the Spice User Group (ISO15504) and we have a proposal for a small software maintenance maturity model. This is both pertinent and valuable for the community. A.Dorling - Future of Spice standard. 13:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I note that the above keep comment was from User_talk:66.131.80.237 please refer to WP:SOCK before making any further bogus edits on this page.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the model is at proposal stage and is unpublished then Wikipedia:No original research would make it a clear candidate for removal from Wikipedia.—Ashleyvh (talk) 23:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - First of all, this is not a vote, it is decided on strength of arguaments determining consensus. Your subject doesn't appear to meet any of our notability guidelines requiring significant coverage from reliable sources to ensure verifiability. As developer of the product, you also have significant conflict of interest with regard to the product. As a general rule, if your product is notable enough, someone without a vested interest will create an article about it.
Also, calling this an "attack" on the subject is being overly dramatic, this is simply a process to determine if an article meets policy and guidelines for inclusion. - Toon⁰⁵ 17:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It should be noted that a clone of S3M appeared, as a new page Software Maintenance Maturity Model, presumably generated by one of the sock-puppets of the original author. That doesn't seem a particularly responsible response to the discussion on the pros and cons of deletion. The new page has subsequently been redirected to S3M pending the outcome of this discussion. David Biddulph (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the likely sock-puppet is User_talk:Dr.Pigosky and the account has been reported for breaching the username policy for real names. I don't have much experience in following the sock puppet reporting process, so would appreciate help in identifying any further abuses by this user under bogus accounts.—Ashleyvh (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My research does not show anything of importance on the subject and it appears non notable. --Stormbay (talk) 02:31, 23 July 2008 (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.