Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Object Prevalence
The article strikes me as so seriously lacking in context that I could easily understand why other editors might find it unintelligible.  It's uncertain from the article whether this is some kind of management philosophy or a product of some sort.On the merits of the subject itself, I would question whether we really need detailed articles about every label given to a management plan or "model" for supervising computer programmers or making collective programming more efficient.  These things tend to be rather esoteric, and of limited interest outside of corporate computer programming, which may make them |not notable.  They also need to be carefully watched for |commercial |conflict of interest, as well as |bad corporate prose style.  Not sure whether Slashdot counts as a |reliable source, either; no opinion about the IBM site.That said, '''no opinion''' about the merits of the current article.  It surely can be improved, and be clearer as to what it's about, so I'm willing to wait.  Note also that it should move to Object prevalence if kept.  That is what the Prevayler article links to, whatever that is
— User:Ihcoyc, 14:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:N||WP:SPAM||WP:COI||WP:BOLLOCKS||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)