Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software Portfolio Rationalization

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. Michig (talk) 20:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Software Portfolio Rationalization[edit]

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

This is an article on a purported business technique that most people call software asset management, though the article goes to some pains to try to make the distinction. The basis of the technique is apparently a book by Michaelson (2007). "Closed Loop Lifecycle Planning®: A Complete Guide to Managing Your PC Fleet." Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN 9780321477149 , a book held in only 100 libraries. Almost none of the accessible references use the term except the HP article, also by Michaelson. Otherwise, all the references are simply talking about the motivations for Software asset management, making this article a prime example of WP:SYNTHESIS DGG ( talk ) 19:54, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I previously had PROD'd this article for WP:OR concerns, but never got around to following it up. DGG's statement summarizes the issues well. Legoktm (talk) 19:58, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Crezzas (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC) I'm relatively new to this process so am trying to understand what I need to do to make the article stick. How many independent external references do you need in order for this not to be considered WP:SYNTHESIS. I have found some consulting companies that are offering this service to organizations, and indeed I have personally witnessed this very activity underway. Software portfolio rationalization is very different from Software asset management; it is just not widely known. I think an article on it would be a valuable contribution to wikipedia.[reply]

it's a matter of quality, not quantity. You need reliable published sources by other people discussing this particular specific topic in a substantial way. Your opinion that the concept is "just not widely known" is probably a good indication they will not yet be available. When it becomes widely known, there will be sources & an article can be written. DGG ( talk ) 21:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject fails the WP:GNG. Appears to be an invented technique that only the person that invented it refers to. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR and as lacking indepth coverage in reliable third party sources. If such sources get added to the article, feel free to ping my talk page. 05:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2012 (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.