Talk:Modified waterfall models

Please do not delete this page while I update it with proper references and more context. I am following up on it as time permits and should be done in a few days.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 1050Benton (talk • contribs)

Much (possibly all) of this text has been plagerised from copyright texts which is not permitted under Wikipedia policies. See

Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright. I have left the bit copied from http://en.allexperts.com/e/w/wa/waterfall_model.htm since they show a GFDL on their pages. --Triwbe (talk) 21:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Waterfall model?

There is almost no content in this article, maybe it should be merged with Waterfall model? 62.107.105.61 (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Waterfall model

Not enough content for an entire article (potentially something to do with not meeting WP:GNG). We could easily include the contents of the article in one of the sections of the other. AtlasDuane (talk) 09:09, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose Not meeting GNG? Are you serious?

There is a difference between "There is enough inane use of waterfall and its offspring in the world already and I have no wish to encourage any more of this" and "It is not widely used". I'm no more going to expand this personally than a Catholic priest is going to write a learned tome on the best forms of sin - but both of us recognise its existence in the world. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Like I said, "potentially", implying it could fit WP:GNG. I think it's notable, but only enough for it's own section on Waterfall model, but I don't think that it needs an entirely separate article all to itself, as otherwise it's just going to end up as a WP:PERMASTUB in my honest opinion. AtlasDuane (talk) 09:46, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you read Steve McConnell's excellent book that is now thoroughly obsolete? That lists pretty much all of these modified waterfalls, because around mid-90s - pre-Agile, these were taken seriously. I think I got rid of my copy a decade ago, but it's probably still one of the best sources. Both of these articles are currently thin, but there's enough in McConnell alone to make a larger article on post-Waterfall waterfalls than both of these together. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• Support merge this to the waterfall model leaving a redirect. This is short enough to merge into that article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Support this doesn't have enough material to justify a separate page. Most of the material about modified waterfall methods should end up on the pages of those methods (like RUP) so it probably should never have enough material. Andy is right that this is a notable topic, however that is fine with a redirect and explicit mention as a subtopic in the Waterfall page which includes a list of the pages of the methods. If there ever was enough original material then it can always be split out. Not sure that someone shouldn't just 'Be Bold' and do the merge. StacksofHoy (talk) 12:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)