Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional Decomposition Methodology

Functional Decomposition Methodology

A testing process almost certainly described by its creator. Is it notable? Sgroupace (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article was a contested prod. Here was my justification for seconding the prod: "Personal essay, not verifiable; Google search on article title did not turn up this author, searching on the author and this subject matter only turned up this page." KuyaBriBri^Talk 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stub. The present article must go: it is original research and advertisement, input by Srikkanthqa (talk · contribs) to describe something "originally designed by Srikkanth Danthala, a QA Test Specialist from SCL Technology Solutions". The only source cited is the web-site of his employer which doesn't, as far as I can see, say anything about this. However a Google search suggests that the term is in widespread enough use to justify a (non-proprietary) article - see, e.g., the quote "The functional decomposition methodology dominated the software development scene in the 1970s and 1980s" from a 1996 paper. I suggest that someone better qualified than me should replace the article with a stub on the lines of "The functional decomposition methodology was a software testing methodology widely used in the 1970s and 1980s", and see what develops from there. JohnCD (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is original research. As for JohnCD's finding for the use of the term, it is not related to testing as described in teh current article. One might argue that a redirect to Decomposition (computer science) may be appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per JohnCD above. The OR can (and should) be removed (which is not the purview of AfD), but the topic is notable and thus the article should not be deleted outright; a stub is certainly an acceptable resolution. – 74 00:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Can yu explain how this testing methodology is notable? -- Whpq (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can explain how the term is notable: take your pick. I suppose actual content could be merged with functional decomposition (also not the purview of AfD), but I'm perfectly fine with a stub (though the article name should be de-capsed). – 74 04:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]