Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothesis based testing
- Hypothesis based testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A test methodology. No attempt made to show notability. Little better than original research. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:11, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete - no evidence of notabiltiy, has a certain air of promoting a pet concept. The only references are to the creator's website and slideshow, and all illustrations that specifically refer to the software testing procedure are directly from these sources (the creator having waived copyright). I am not familiar enough with the field to know if there is anything unique about what is described, or if someone is just trying to advance a neologism (or a detailed formalization) for what is in effect standard practice, but without independent referencences, we can't know whether the term is used outside of the company where it was developed. Agricolae (talk) 16:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as per nom Power~enwiki (talk) 21:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per
WP:SNOW,WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:OR. I've taught many subjects, from Business law to living environment, and none of it makes sense. Perhaps it's just too esoteric. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Note to closing admin: Vishsank inserted its !vote above, but after, mine. I have since stricken out one argument. Bearian (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Followup note - I have moved Vishsank's !vote to the bottom, where it belonged, rather than interrupting the nomination as it did. Agricolae (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
- Keep - included several citations from international journals and magazines. Also added online references. Vishsank (talk)17:30, 25 May 2017 (IST)
- Not all of the added references are useful. Ref. 2, "In pursuit of cleanliness" is a step in the right direction, but it is a bit of a word soup and I am not familiar enough with the publication (is that what it is?) to know if it is sufficient to establish notability; ref. 3, "Unisys technical report" is in a language I don't read, so I can't evaluate it; ref. 4, "Accelerate Defect Detection" is a press release, not independent; ref. 5, "Happy Days" does not mention HBT; ref. 6, "Testing waters" is a blog post that only mentions it in the comments section, so it is worthless; ref. 7, "Scientific method" is from a 'journal' so obscure I can't find anything about it; ref. 9, "strategic consultancy" is a company marketing flier, so perhaps shows its use outside of the creator, but its value as a WP:RS is debatable; ref. 10 is again straight from the creator, so not independent; the last ref "Aesthetics" only mentions HBT in passing, and is of debatable quality as an RS. In short, I am not convinced of notability, but even if a case can be made for notability, it doesn't excuse the massive amounts of WP:OR that make up the article, and it would need to be pared down to a stub. Agricolae (talk) 22:16, 25 May 2017 (UTC)