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 - Feel free to create the redirect if you feel it is applicable. Based on this discussion, nobody seems to think it should be kept as is. Chrislk02 ^{Chris Kreider} 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Systems intelligent scrum[edit]

Has two Google hits, one of which is is Wikipedia's. Says it is a new concept; will develop into something. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scrum (development), until it actually does develop into a distinct method. Kate (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The other google hit is an entry on its author's blog that doesn't even predate the article. Should this "concept" become accepted and appear in secondary sources, then it'll merit a redirect. Original nonsense. Delete. —Cryptic 04:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a neologism. WillOakland (talk) 04:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't complain much, if you decided to delete the page, although I'd find that a bit unfortunate. It isn't a neologism, because no-one has connected the dots between these two concepts before. But if you really see it as too little to justify an article, I'd be happy to get back to it w/more references at a later date. Basically I just wanted to document the new concept that I believe to have genuine promise, and I hoped to offer the idea as `open source' to all right from the get-go through wikipedia. (SuurMyy (talk) 20:39, 4 June 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.