Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IDF model


 * 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.  Sandstein  06:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

IDF model

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The creator removed a PROD in  December 2010 but  no  one noticed and the article has stayed in this state ever since. Unreferenced, a personal reflection or essay. WP:OR. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This page has been there for over a year and a half and other persons has edit it also, your AfD looks more like a personal matter at the moment and therefor is not considered to be on behalf of Wikipedia. I removed your AfD therefor.--S.A. de Ruiter 17:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruiter (talk • contribs)
 * There is nothing personal in this, but it stands to reason that if one article is up for deletion, the author's other creations will also be examined. Other users edited the article because the fact that you removed the PROD without addressing the issue simply went unnoticed. Removing AfD templates is against policy.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Classic example of a deletion candidate which is hard to explain, but isn't really about a "thing". Article uses no source and a search throws up nothing to support the article. Agree with nom, delete as OR essay.  Basa lisk  inspect damage⁄berate 22:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, I think it's far more often stated as an aphorism about computer programming projects. Merge to Project_management_triangle. -- AnonMoos (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 01:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete AnonMoos has pointed to a more nuanced and contextualised discussion at the Project_management_triangle article. I'm not seeing anything in the unreferenced IDF model article which could be used to improve that article. That leaves the question of whether a redirect would be appropriate? But I'm not finding any specific use of the "IDF model" as a term that would make that appropriate (and it could cause confusion for other IDF models such as Ideal free distribution). AllyD (talk) 12:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - The material here is unsourced, and IDF Model as a redirect makes no sense as I cannot find any sources referring to this by that name. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2012 (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.