Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RDP technique
- RDP technique (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
It's just a proposed technique, how can it be notable? RenegadeMonster (talk) 12:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Improper nomination; reject/restart. – 74 04:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Comment: Agree Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- and the creator of the article. RenegadeMonster (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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 Marshall Talk/Cont 15:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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 • Talk 17:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)