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)
- That's a much better rationale. You looked for sources, and that's what you found. Uncle G (talk) 20:03, 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)
Closeas 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)- Agree with that last point -- no prejudice against a future AfD with a correct nomination.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 Marshall Talk/Cont 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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 • Talk 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that was it. I simply did step #1 of the three AFD nomination steps. The nominator had already done steps #2 and #3 xyrself. It was one edit. Uncle G (talk) 00:55, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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 • Talk 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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 Marshall Talk/Cont 20:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- Agree with that last point -- no prejudice against a future AfD with a correct nomination.--S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Merge with Extreme Programming, since this particular technique doesn't seem to have sufficient notability for its own article, with most of the available literature centering on one researcher (Mirakhorli). But there certainly are references to justify mentioning this in Extreme Programming. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- 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)