Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Needs analysis

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Needs analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

article is a rambling mess supported by only two irrelevant sources. blow it up, please. lettherebedarklight〔晚安 おやすみ〕ping me when replying 06:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:TNT. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 11:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Needs analysis? Needs deletion. If this article's subject is notable, this iteration of the article is not a good representation of that. I read the lede several times and I couldn't figure out what the scope of the article is even supposed to be.Needs analysis is the formal process that sits alongside Requirements analysis and focuses on the human elements of the requirements. What? Formal process for what? The human elements of the requirements of what? I shouldn't have to click into Requirements analysis or investigate the lone reference just to get an idea of what the article is even about. That sentence is the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article's content, and unfortunately it does that job perfectly; the article is a mess. It's an essay, an instructional how-to, not a Wikipedia article. Blow it up and start over if the subject is truly notable, but this iteration is unsalvageable. - Aoidh (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Aoidh said, needs deletion. Appears wholly unencyclopedic. Rubbish computer (Ping me or leave a message on my talk page) 17:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Needs assessment, which appears to be much more thorough (though still messy) coverage of the same concept. Dylnuge ^{(Talk • Edits)} 22:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.