Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prime Directive (retrospectives)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. --Coredesat 06:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prime Directive (retrospectives)

Prime Directive (retrospectives) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable concept with no assertion that it is used outside the one cited source. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 15:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete. This might even be a speedy candidate, I can't make heads or tails out of this article due to a lack of context. Arkyan • (talk) 15:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: I would have csd'd it, but it just didn't seem to meet the criteria either for nonsense or lack of context. If enough people think it deserves to go, it could be snowballed. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk to me) 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete looks to me like it references an article that no longer exists. Concept clearly doesn't merit its own article anyhow. Capmango 22:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Who is Norm Kerth? "Regardless of what we discover, we understand and truly believe that everyone did the best job they could, given what they knew at the time, their skills and abilities, the resources available, and the situation at hand." That's it? Bad enough that the name is unoriginal (think Gene Roddenberry), but even if the name wasn't plagiarized, calling this a "prime directive" is egotistical. Mandsford 22:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, not speedy. The context is pretty simple to figure out - project management and evaluations following a project. I assume that it's "Prime," because in software projects (and any other kind of group retrospective analysis) assigning blame is a discussion killer. Yet it happens a lot. So setting a guideline like this makes sense. (I mention the previous just to indicate that figuring out context on this isn't all that hard.) I suppose you could speedy it under G11 for apparently advertising the book, but I'd recommend against that. Since it was nommed twelve minutes after creation by a first time contributor, it could well be a stub that the creator intends to build on. (Or not...) I don't know how notable this particular concept is, and would agree that if it reaches normal end of AfD that it be deleted on WP:N and WP:NEO. LaughingVulcan 01:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 10:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, context is poor, notability even worse.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • delete per above, i.e. Piotrus. Debivort 18:33, 23 June 2007 (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.