Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of usability evaluation methods

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was keep. Sandstein 10:46, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of usability evaluation methods

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Out of scope article, that I can't really discern of classify. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 13:37, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a legitimate WP:stand-alone list article, and expand with more recent references. I created this article back when Wikipedia had a more accepting approach, that welcomed knowledge regardless of its format; yet even then I based it on a legitimate academic source.

Per WP:LISTN and Wikipedia:Comparison Articles and Original Research#Defence, the list is not merely a WP:SYNTH compilation written by a wikipedian, but rather the idea of comparing the validity of different usability methods has been itself the subject of studies by several independent authors [1], [2], [3], [4]. Diego (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I've added the above references to the article and written a short lede to explain the purpose and scope of the comparison list. Diego (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now that sources have been added. I agree that it was quite dodgy before, and Diego Moya should probably not have waited 14 (!) years to add a few references! :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:56, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note that the 7th reference is a predatory open access journals. See Special:AbuseFilter/891. The reference has doi:10.4018/ijebr.2015010101. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 06:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I have just removed that reference and the corresponding cited text from the article. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 06:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Apart from that problematic reference, as Diego Moya has added several references, keep per wp:hey. ~ Ase1este_{charge-parity}^time 06:38, 18 February 2021 (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.