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.
I've asked the nominator to change their opening statement. Let's not close this early to avoid potential fragmentation of the deletion discussion. -
Mgm|
(talk)12:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Well how about "has it actually received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"? I have the feeling that the sources given either are not independent of the subject, lack editorial integrity, or fail to address the subject directly and in detail (or at all, most likely, since this is just a proposed technique).
RenegadeMonster (
talk)
12:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
You tell us the answer to your question. You're supposed to have looked for sources yourself beforehand, with a deletion nomination being the result of such research. Look for sources yourself, and tell the rest of us the conclusion that you come to, based upon that research, as your rationale. See
Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination.
Uncle G (
talk)
13:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I google for "rdp technique" "extreme programming" and I find a lot of Wikipedia mirrors and a couple of papers by Mehdi Mirakhorli, who I believe is the proposer of the technique.
RenegadeMonster (
talk)
14:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Yup, reject/restart. There's no notification of the proposed AfD on the article so potentially interested editors won't be aware, and the 5-day clock's ticking. It's procedurally inappropriate to continue.--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont15:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Close as incorrect nomination. The AfD is about 4 days old and there is still no AfD notice on the article. After closing this AfD, it can be renominated correctly. —LinguistAtLarge •
Talk17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Don't fetishize the process. Either of two of you could have completed the nomination, as I just did, and moved the transclusion to the appropriate per-day page, which isn't necessary in this case since it was
already transcluded on today's page. There's no need to have absurd "restarts" when 2 out of the three steps of an AFD nomination have been completed. If a nomination is incomplete, one can roll it forward to completion if there's a nomination rationale. Don't let
DumbBOT be the smart one. ☺
Uncle G (
talk)
20:03, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Actually I couldn't even remotely have "moved the transclusion", whatever that means, and I had no idea it was possible. That must make me dumb. :-)--
S MarshallTalk/
Cont20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Thanks UncleG, on a technical note, what exactly did you do? I ask because I want to learn. Did you just use {{
subst:afd}} to add the notice to the article and that's it? Did you do anything else? Thanks! —LinguistAtLarge •
Talk22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanztalk07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Yet another non-notable scheme for organizing or supervising computer programmers, typically written in an
ambiguous but
effusive style that leaves you guessing how this one is supposed to differ from the last such non-notable management philosophy. This one may be better than others, in that it actually contains
how-to description in addition to the standard gushing, but that doesn't make it an encyclopedia subject either. -
Smerdis of Tlön (
talk)
14:46, 9 March 2009 (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.