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. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

PRiSM[edit]

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

Ad - no assertion of notability. Only has one primary source failing WP:GNG . Widefox; talk 12:04, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this is not the current news item PRISM (surveillance program) . I've renamed to Projects integrating sustainable methods , and created redir PRiSM (project management) . Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen there's the company advert too (where someone didn't find a source).. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPM Global Widefox; talk 15:13, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No assertion of notability? This methodology is used by the US Navy, the BBC, Cisco, and many organizations. We will work on the neutrality to accomodate the guidelines. Please refer to AGILE, PRINCE2, Waterfall, or SCRUM to see other project methodologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.44.9 (talk) 14:55, 11 June 2013 (UTC) 184.18.44.9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Widefox; talk 00:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have sources (meeting GNG) for that I'm happy to withdraw. See WP:OTHERSTUFF for why the other PMs are not relevant. Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see no mention of these customers on the vendors website, or customer websites or google. I did find an unrelated BBC prism project [1] [2]. I am inclined to say ((citation needed)) for that assertion per WP:V. Widefox; talk 15:41, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it were just a matter of the sources on the article, I would say delete. But if the appropriate sources (sources that say the US Navy, BBC... use it) were added to strengthen the notability I would say keep. —Σosthenes12 ^Talk 16:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)Sosthenes12[reply]

~~Keep incredible amount of coverage , in essentialy every news source world wide by now. Utterly absurd nomination. DGG ( talk ) 17:41, 11 June 2013 (UTC)~~[reply]

A simple case of mistaken article - this is not PRISM (surveillance program), care to correct your !vote pls, and withdraw comment? Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please do not confuse this article with PRISM (surveillance program), which is a notable topic and frequently mentioned in the news. 069952497a^{Comments and complaints}_{Stuff I've done} 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If kept, this article should be renamed to something like PRiSM (project management) to disambiguate from the extremely notable NSA spy project. --Mark viking (talk) 21:13, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

new redirect

Done in the meantime. I've separately listed PRiSM for XfD to help prevent confusion in the meantime. Widefox; talk 18:45, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - good idea (although not technically needed). I've taken the liberty of renaming to Projects integrating sustainable methods with the redirect intact from PRiSM. This is why I'm here - from working on the DAB Prism. I've added a hatnote, and now it fits correctly on the DAB page as we couldn't expand the initialism before (per WP:MOSDAB). Widefox; talk 14:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spam for non-notable management method. Although with the current brouhaha around the NSA program, it will be difficult to search for sources (although it probably was already difficult before, "prism" being an existing word...) --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are a lot of books about project management. This method doesn't seem to be mentioned in any. At best, a redirect to the company proposing it should replace the current content, and that's assuming GPM Global survives its own AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GPM Global, which doesn't look likely to end in keeping that article as of now. 86.121.18.17 (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at their website, it looks like they have a nfp board and are listed on the UN Global Compact website. Credibility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.18.44.9 (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2013 (UTC) 184.18.44.9 (talk · contribs) has only contributed to the article(s) under discussion for deletion and AFD. Widefox; talk 00:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What's an "nfp" board? And being listed on a website, even the UN, makes them notable how? --Randykitty (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment nfp may be not for profit? - there wouldn't be any change due to WP:NONPROFIT Widefox; talk 15:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only evidence for importance seems to be the most trivial sort of listing. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 20 June 2013 (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.