Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hypothesis based testing


 * 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hypothesis based testing

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A test methodology. No attempt made to show notability. Little better than original research. &mdash; 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: 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)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 04:13, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is a muddled presentation of concepts from systems, software, requirements, and test engineering, with very poor attribution of the author's ideas to sources, such as they are, and no awareness of the extensive technical literature in these fields. The confusion alone would be enough for WP:TNT; the WP:OR must be fatal to the article. All testing (if, as Dijkstra said, you are not simply experimenting in the hope of finding something wrong) is necessarily hypothesis-based, so the title is as vacuous as the text, I hesitate to write 'content'. The diagram of traceability is as disastrous a muddle as the text (and is being deleted), with the test list shown twice but traced in two different ways, and the test cases trace forwards to tests but backwards to requirements, enough said. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom Deathlibrarian (talk) 09:46, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Agricolae (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Snow delete: per other comments on this page. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom as original research. --Lockley (talk) 01:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.