Time to completion: Chidgk1 ( talk ) 17:34, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Merge with Estimated time of arrival : little more than a DICDEF by itself.  Owen× ☎ 21:31, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete No evidence of the article subject being more than a WP:DICDEF .  Oppose merge as the contents are unreferenced and contradict use in sources where the term is used to refer to the time to completion of the project rather than the task (the latter is described in Duration (project management) ) PaulT2022 ( talk ) 21:38, 2 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - Important project management metric which can be expanded to more than a definition.  Some sources: [11] , [12] .  Merging to Estimated time of arrival doesn't seem like a good idea because this is not associated with project management.  Estimate to complete is a related project management term but seems to be specific to Earned value management and refers to remaining work, not total work.  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 15:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Is there a scholarly source related to project management, a body of knowledge or a textbook that would define it in the meaningless way the Time to completion article does?  The first link is an SEO blog on a job website, possibly based on the definition taken from Time to completion , the second refers to 'time to completion of a degree', which appears to be a widely used term in education not related to 'time to completion' in project management.  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 16:23, 7 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Here are the first 4 Books search results: [13] , [14] , [15] , [16] .  ~ Kvng ( talk ) 22:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] They don't describe a single concept alleged to exist by Time to completion .  The first two books say it's a date when tasks are scheduled to complete.  Third and fourth say it's a date when the project is estimated to be completed.  These sources merely use these words in a dictionary sense and don't indicate that 'time to completion' is a specific metric with a commonly accepted meaning that can be expected to be discussed in literature in-depth.  None offer significant coverage .  PaulT2022 ( talk ) 23:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:34, 9 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Daniel ( talk ) 21:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] TNT -- As the article stands, it is a very poor WP:DICTDEF of a concept that is valued by a subset of project managers.  I think that an article might be eventually constructed using PMI publications and related materials, but I can't see this version being salvaged.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 15:16, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : Agree with nom, this is a dictdef.  Oppose merging unsourced OR into another article based on WP:V, WP:BURDEN, no objection to a consensus redirect.  // Timothy :: talk 18:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete Agree with the consensus that this is a poor dictionary definition.  Tooncool64 ( talk ) 21:07, 19 December 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: delete