Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Product requirements document


 * 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) – Davey 2010 Talk 23:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Product requirements document

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unreferenced. It's probably an important topic, and googling finds some possible references, but they look like coming from various commercial sites that offer training or services, and it would be much better to have actually reliable sources added by somebody who knows the topic professionally. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: It is indeed an important topic, and it could be sourced from twenty textbooks at least. (Google search "Product requirements document", click on "books".) The document is the basic expression of what a product is supposed to do, which everyone can easily see must influence every other software engineering/systems engineering document down the line. You are also right that the article ought to be sourced, but that isn't a concern here: our concern is that reliable sources exist, and they do. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep – The subject meets WP:GNG. Source examples include, but are not limited to:, , , , . North America1000 08:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - sources need to be added in, but other than that it is notable and important. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although the titles of the references presented by seem suspect, upon closer investigation they seem to be RS, so there is quite some coverage. Past the WP:DICDEF line. Esquivalience  t 02:14, 15 April 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.