Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Software quality model

Software quality model

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

Article is of low quality and is covered entirely by Software quality Camjackson89 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Camjackson89 (talk) 23:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete Software quality model is a notable and important topic that we ought to cover. However a redlink would be more honest and this article isn't worth the bytes. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:54, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question Would a redlink be better than a redirect? Redirecting this title seems to me to be more helpful than deleting. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have an appropriate target to redirect it to. A WP:REDLINK indicates that we have a notable topic but don't have an article on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it so different from software quality that it needs a separate article? Nyttend (talk) 12:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly because software quality is simply too big a topic for a single WP article. All we can do there is to build an index of topics, with a large number of sub articles. Some of these will be about "The quality of software", others about "Why software has a quality problem", "How to measure software quality", "How to build quality software" and "How to assure the quality of the software being produced".

A "software quality model" is an abstract construction that maps measurable features of some chunk of code (lines of code, number of comments, conformance to coding standards, cost) onto another map of value perceptions about what's important in software (usability, speed, cost, feature points, trust in its reliability). From these you might then construct one or more KPIs to give a simple manager-friendly number for "good" or "bad". As software is complex, this model is surprisingly complex too. Formal work began (AFAIR) in the 1970s with pretty well-known (although now hugely superseded) works by McCall and also Boehm. In the last decade though, we've developed software quality models that are actually useful and mean something, can deliver this meaning during development, not afterwards, and we've also developed management approaches that can feed the results of this model back into the ongoing management of a project, such that competent software projects now deliver working products on time and budget.

So it's a notable topic that's worth covering. It's also distinct (and worth covering separately) from some broad "software quality" article. Maybe this current article is (per nom) "covered entirely by Software quality", however it shouldn't be, if it was the article it ought to be.

However the article we have here isn't that article. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]