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, sources were not presented.-Wafulz (talk)

Agile Project Leadership Network[edit]

The article does not assert notability of the organization. After doing a web search, I find it has fairly low hitrate, and most hits are self-promotional or directory listings. Delete per WP:NOT#DIR and WP:SPAM. JERRY ^talk _contribs 15:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and inadequately referenced (the articles needs work), an Internet search does show a large number of hits that are not necessarily self-promotional. This article, in my opinion, does not fit WP:SPAM; and the referenced founding member (one of several founding members) is notable. Mh29255 (talk) 15:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but as non-notable rather than spam. A Google news arvhive search unearths a number of press releases (all those entries from PR Newswire and Business Wire) which, if this was a notable organisation, you would have expected to be picked up and translated into significant press coverage. This doesn't appear to have happened. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Agile methodologies are poised to overtake the world of project management. The topic of agile project management is covered already in Wikipedia articles on extreme project management and human interaction management. Significant academic work points to this coming phenomenon as a replacement for traditional project management techniques. Since the Agile Project Leadership Network is the professional worldwide organization for this movement, it is completely and legitimately notable, and therefore meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion. Mpleahy 17:04, 13 January (UTC)
Delete: non-notable, cf. Phil Bridger. _R_ (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it may yet become notable, but it lacks any good cites. Press releases verify nothing. Bearian (talk) 14:01, 16 January 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.