Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated IT Methodology

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. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Integrated IT Methodology

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

Article author (who also happens to be the self-identified president of the business who has developed this methodology) removed the prod tag without providing sources, so here we are. Sources currently in the article are all from 'emagazines' or blogs, and all seem to have been written by the wiki article's author.

I've looked, and topic seems to have no reliable sources available, so it does not satisfy the General notability guideline. MrOllie (talk) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No 3rd party sources, so this indicates it is madeup. I haven't found anything to suggest that this term is used by the software industry. Mattg82 (talk) 00:56, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lack of 3rd party sources is enough here. Shadowjams (talk) 06:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete An advert written by Qaiassist for a Qaiassist IT delivery method. Its generic IT delivery and not a standard nor notable. scope_creep (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertising, per WP:SOAP. Tangurena (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, blatant advertising, possibly also original research. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:21, 27 August 2010 (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.