Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cowboy coding (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. The article's subject is found to be notable, based upon this discussion and the previous consensus found at the last AFD. &mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  beans  // 00:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cowboy coding
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Northeastern US residents sometimes use the term "Cowboy" derogatorily to mean reckless or irresponsible. Sticking the word "Cowboy" in front of the word "Coding" doesn't make it a software development philosophy. It is a Neologism - it just means the same thing as "Cowboy-anything" but applied to code.

The first attempt to delete this article failed because Google has roughly 270 hits on "Cowboy Coding." I could not find *any* that are noteworthy. Most link to this article as their source! Wikipedia has a No Original Research policy which this article clearly violates.

The idea behind this article has some merit, in the sense that there can be an absence of development methodology in the same way that Anarchy is the absence of Government. But someone needs to articulate that much better than this article currently does. The article Software Development Process:Other has a section called "Code and Fix" that seems to roughly summarize this article. Maybe that section could be expanded? Also Capability Maturity Model Level 1 seems like the same idea. Actually, I think that's the closest match to the concept of development anarchy.

One person wrote that the term Rapid Application Development is sometimes used when companies don't want to admit that they have no formal development process. Maybe a section should be added there to say a little more about that. Maybe a list of maverick software developers should be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:09, 1 February 2016‎

Here is the talk from the first attempt at deletion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cowboy_coding — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenPeterson (talk • contribs) 16:25, 1 February 2016‎


 * Keep The term is reliably sourced and meets WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:12, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


 * What makes you think that? Two entries from the c2.com wiki (see Wiki is not Wikipedia) and Mick West's personal web site (which starts its definition with a link to this article in Wikipedia) do not constitute reliable sources in my estimation.  The reference to Google's 20% Time does not use the words "Cowboy Coding".  I don't have a copy of Software Project Management by Hughes/Cotterell to check that reference, so it's possible that 1 out of the 5 sources **could** be legitimate.  With all the programming resources available online, that is the best the world could come up with in the 8 years this article has been around?  Instead of making vague "the sources are out there" statements, it's time to see those sources if people want to save this article.GlenPeterson (talk) 18:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean Ward Cunningham's blog is not a reliable source on software development terms? I added more sources from a software development website. I think the problem, based on your comments on your talk page and the article's talk page, is that it's an term used by American software developers. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  18:28, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic is notable, being covered in numerous sources. Andrew D. (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2016 (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.