Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six phases of a big project


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Daniel (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Six phases of a big project

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Hey all, I've combed through a few pages of Google results and the only potential references I'm seeing are simply citing this Wikipedia article. Of the two references in the article, one is a | blog that mentions the Wikipedia article and the other is a business book I cannot access (for what it's worth, the book's cultural impact appears to have been very small). Fails WP:N. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Behavioural science,  and Social science. Crunchydillpickle🥒 (talk) 20:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete – Does not seem to be a notable concept in its own right. I checked The Wikipedia Library to see if there were any journal articles discussing it and did not find anything. Memes can be notable but I'm not seeing anything that'd indicate that here. Clovermoss 🍀  (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't need Google Books or any sort of search engine whatsoever for this one. I could turn around from where I an typing this and pull a book from 1981 with this in it from my bookshelf.  It is by Paul Dickson.  (I have a 1981 reprint of the 1978 original.)  It definitely pre-dates Wikipedia.  It predates Internet memes.  It pre-dates the World Wide Web.  Unfortunately, it is a book of humourous "rules", and whilst for some of the "rules" it documents their authorships and provenances, for this one it does not.  I've not seen this ever properly documented.  It is oft-repeated; but no-one has ever truly documented this piece of engineering folklore.  Uncle G (talk) 22:34, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The earliest version I can find in that form is from 1972: Effective vs. Efficient Computing, which also appeared in Datamation, June 1972, p75, says it's a modification of remarks attributed originally to Harvey Golub . Adam Sampson (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It's all moot unless some folklorist does the proper research and sorts out the truth. I can just as easily point to Joseph E. Warren claiming to have invented this by paraphrasing something else in Der Speigel 50/1973.  This does not an article make.  Someone needs to have done this work for us.  Dickson, at minimum, but a proper folklorist analysis for preference.  Dickson didn't.  No-one else has either.  Uncle G (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nom. Nothing here to suggest notability. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:35, 4 December 2023 (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.