Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment


 * 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. consensus to delete, as most 'not deletes' were of questionable intentions with no strong policy arguments Nja 247 10:37, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a non-notable particular assessment methodology. This page appears to exist in order to promote http://www.tudor.lu. Based on the information available from their site, this method is an "international commercialisation of AIDA, an ISO/IEC15504 compliant process assessment of IT Service Management, under the trademark TIPA (Tudor’s ITSM Process Assessment)" and so is a non-notable commercial product. Ash (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not delete After reading the Wikipedia's Deletion Policy I found no reason why this article should be deleted as it doesn't fall in any of the "Reasons for deletion" mentioned there. As for the methodology itself being a "non-notable particular assessment methodology" I'd say it is a NEW methodology rather than "non relevant".  We should give it some time to establish and be tested before labeling it as "non relevant". Finally as for being a "commercial product", is it different from many other articles that are available in Wikipedia (I could mention a few, but I don't know if I have the right to do so). oivs1976, 15:45 CET 5 August 2009  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oivs1976 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, strongly. More vague and unreadable "process" and "method" apparently involving the supervision of computer programmers, confusingly written to give the process the false appearance of rigor through the multiplication of steps beyond necessity.  Contains buzzwords typical of spam ("best practices" &c.) Non-notable neologism designed to promote a particular business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. No Google News results for Tudor ITSM; no independent Google Scholar results for Tudor ITSM Assessment; 10 Google Web results for "Tudor's ITSM" OR "Tudor ITSM" -wiki show no signs of notability. — Rankiri (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 *  Not delete  First and sole result of a search with the word "TIPA" in French Wikipedia: TIPA. Oivs1976, 17:00 CET, 5 August 2009
 * Please don't reinforce your opinion with multiple recommendations. I would also suggest to visit WP:GNG, WP:RS and WP:SOAPBOX for better understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines. Oh, and you can also sign your name automatically with four tildes, like this: ~ . — Rankiri (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As the same person created the French Wikipedia TIPA page a week before they created this article, it seems like a rather shallow justification.—Ash (talk) 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not delete To answer Ash, about the governance, TIPA is still on the responsibility of the CRP Henri Tudor, which organizes training courses and promotes the methodology in conferences. I must precise that CRP is the acronym for Public Research Centre (in French). So, there is no interest to make advertisement for the CRP Henri Tudor, because it has no commercial purpose, except maybe giving training curses on which it obviously do not make profits. Whatever, I have suppressed the link with its website for avoiding any doubts about it.

We are currently finishing and validating the TIPA certification scheme, which aims at ensuring that certified persons will perform TIPA assessments rigorously (thus ensuring that those assessments comply with the ISO/IEC 15504 requirements). Indeed, TIPA is an improvement initiative, not an audit with a process certification. Thus, the creation of a TIPA assessor certification has no link with the scientific value of the methodology on which I focus in the article. I tried to avoid value judgments but I am ready to modify some sentences if anybody finds one.

However, you are right about the word “open methodology”. After discussion, we found that the word was insufficiently clear. We presented TIPA as an open framework to reflect the idea that anyone, previously trained, can use, adapt and modify the TIPA methodology, even for a commercial use. We will correct it shortly.

Concerning the word “commercialization”, it’s a bad word we used to speak about the possibility for assessors to be trained by IT training companies, and not only by the CRP Henri Tudor. Our goal is that the methodology is used by a greater number of companies, because we don’t think a scientific innovation should be abandoned just because the Research Center is Public so we promote it. But we can’t speak of commercialization, maybe of “valorization”.

To answer Rankiri, the name of the methodology is not Tudor but TIPA. Moreover, TIPA is the following of the AIDA research program, this is very important. On Google you will find many more results by writing TIPA ITSM or AIDA ITSM. The same on Google Scholar, you will find many results by searching AIDA "service management" or Tudor’s ITSM Process Assessment.

To answer Smerdis of Tlön, the “best practices” term is not a buzzword, but a quotation of a current expression to speak about ITIL. However, I changed it. TIPA is not a neologism but an acronym for a scientific innovation and it’s exactly why there has to be an article on it on Wikipedia. I would like you to precise what is vague and confusing, the article is just an explanation of the scientific basis of the methodology, based on well-known standards in computer science (ITIL and ISO 15504). However, I modified it to try to answer to the criticisms.

Mlnantes (talk) 13:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC) — Mlnantes (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:CRYSTAL. If the policies, governance and commercial terms of this methodology or framework or certification scheme are still under debate, then there seems little reason to create a Wikipedia entry that may be factually misleading.—Ash (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Not delete I am participating in conferences about IT service management and I regularly hear about TIPA. I think it is something notable.195.218.10.240 (talk) 12:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC) — 195.218.10.240 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Running a simple Google News search test; "TIPA" and "service management" got zero results while in contrast "ITIL" and "service management" got over 7,000 results. On the ITIL community forum, searching for "TIPA" got zero results. On the ITSM International Forum, searching for "TIPA" got zero results. For your comment to have any credibility it may help if we knew which IT service management conference you were talking about, as others could check the conference proceedings and see if TIPA is regularly mentioned. You may find it helpful to check the guidance of WP:SIGNUP before making further comments here as using an anonymous IP or SPA may also affect apparent credibility for comments made; particularly on an AFD discussion where at least two contributors have direct associations with the organizations involved based on their edit histories and statements made.—Ash (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are some references to conferences:

Eurospi Conferences

Tutorial : ITIL Service Management or how to deliver Quality T Services S. Prime, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2005.eurospi.net/ )

Assessing IT Service Management Processes with AIDA - Experience Feedback R. Hilbert, Dimension Data, A. Renault, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2007.eurospi.net/ )

Modeling and Assessment in IT Service Process Improvement B. Barafort, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU; D. Jezek, S. Stolfa & I. Vondrak, Technical University of Ostrava, CZ; T. Mäkinen & T. Varkoi, Tampere University of Technology, FI ( http://2008.eurospi.net/ )

Sustainable Service Innovation Model: A Standardized IT Service Management Process Assessment Framework B. Barafort & A. Rousseau, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2009.eurospi.net/ )

TIPA to Keep ITIL Going and Going M. St-Jean, Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor, LU ( http://2009.eurospi.net/ )

Spice Conferences

Long Term Utilisation of SPICE in an IT Service Company Juhani Jokela, Fusijsu Finland, FI ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )

How to evaluate benefits of Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment? Marc St-Jean, Anne-Laure Mention, LU  ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )

Tutorial : ITIL process assessments Alain Renault, Luxembourg ( http://www.spice2009.com/ )

itSMF Belgique

Assessing the maturity level of the IT processes with AIDA Sylvie Prime, Sogeti ( http://www.itsmf.be/page/116/Conference_Programme_2009/ )

Moreover, I think that the pertinence of a scientific process is much more measurable on its presence on Google scholar than in Google news.

Best regards Mlnantes (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * A search on Google scholar for "TIPA" and "service management" returned zero results. This was restricted to business/computing areas and publications dated from 2006 onwards. You will note that presentations by "Centre de Recherche Public Henri Tudor" will not be considered independent sources for the purposes of notability. I have not searched through the other conferences you list, hopefully someone else will get on to it.—Ash (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I answered Rankiri, searching AIDA "service management" or Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment will provide you results on Google scholar... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnantes (talk • contribs) 12:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oddly using the terms "Tudor's ITSM Process Assessment" in this Google Scholar search returned zero results. I note that The TIPA methodology was created as a result of the AIDA research project, so finding results for the latter is likely to be off-topic for this article and the notability of AIDA is not the issue for this AFD. I'll not be responding to any further comments here as I have clarified the nomination sufficiently by this point, other editors can take up the case either way.—Ash (talk) 14:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think some good faith is necessary in a debate. You voluntarily went on Google scholar UK instead of Google scholar.com to be able to say once again "zero results". And obviously, it was people from the Henri Tudor Public Research Center who presented the methodology in the conferences you asked me to quote because it's them who created it. At last, the name changed from AIDA to TIPA because AIDA was a trademark registered by another company, but it's exactly the same methodology. Mlnantes (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, in order to show I am assuming good faith, I'll answer this one comment more. Google scholar UK does not limit results to UK publications or those only in English. If the only reliable sources that demonstrate notability (IAW wp:ORG) are about AIDA rather than TIPA then I suggest you create an article about AIDA or rename the current article. Now I really will retire from editing this AFD as I have to pack a suitcase.—Ash (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I am happy to see you acknowledge there are sources demonstrating the notability of the methodology. But renaming the article in "AIDA" would be useless because it's the former name of the methodology that nobody uses today. However, I am ready to do some changes on the text of the article if anybody has some remarks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlnantes (talk • contribs) 07:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. After taking another look at this nomination, I still don't see any evidence of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. My earlier recommendation remains unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 14:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.