Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pomodoro Technique


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pomodoro Technique

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Promotional insertion made at the same time in many languages. Only advertising and no scientifical studies can prove and justify the 25 minutes rule chosen arbitrarly by the "inventor" of the technique. Mlvtrglvn (talk) 07:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Invalid reasoning - just because you think it's unscientific doesn't mean it's not notable: if other people criticise it, add a "criticism" section. It has a lot of coverage. The article cites the WSJ, NYTimes, and books. I found various other results online. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of evidence of notability. Northern Antarctica (talk) 16:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:50, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep As Colapeninsula notes, many high quality reliable sources for this technique exist. A GScholar search shows that it is also notable within the software engineering field. This topic is highly notable. The article is not excessively promotional; any cleanup needed is a surmountable problem, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE and is thus no reason for deletion. A highly notable topic and surmountable article problems suggest keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Appears notable and well sourced. If there's some general article title this technique and the other similar ones can be merged into with re-directs for the individual ones, that might be worth exploring. Paavo273 (talk) 00:46, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems clearly to be notable. If it seems a bit spammy, it can be cleaned up but it shouldn't be deleted. Abbenm (talk) 01:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - The nominator has not given a valid reason for deletion. The content of the article is backed by reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal. --Joshua Issac (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2014 (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.